Jump to content

Talk:Law enforcement response to the January 6 United States Capitol attack

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

Disputed removal of 'Death of Brian Sicknick' and 'Police injuries'

[edit]

@VQuakr: Please provide a rationale for the removal of this content which is clearly germane to this article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Disputed addition of 'Casualties', in which several editors disagreed with your idea to do this and proposed alternatives. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rationale as to how removal of said content would make this article better is to be found in that discussion. This was originally reverted together with content on the three remaining deaths of Trump supporters -- because of that element specifically (not the remainder, which are the portions that are now restored). The original reverter provided a rationale in the discussion how this exact addition (without the disputed element) to this article is appropriate, saying We could definitely include the paragraphs about Babbitt and Sicknick.... You said nothing on how it isn't a good addition. Therefore when you retroactively expansively interpret your very much unsubstantiated "still disagree" in that discussion as opposing this specific change, and when you revert based on that, you are WP:STONEWALLING: ...opposing a change, based solely on the argument that "more discussion is needed", "discussion is in progress", or something like that, without demonstrating any serious inclination to engage in substantive discussion about the change. You need to explain to the community how this article would be better without the 'Death of Brian Sicknick' summary, and without 'Police injuries'. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a casualty, not an element of the response. Suggest continuing the discussion at the location linked above rather than splitting it up. VQuakr (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should then the shooting of Ashli Babbitt not be covered in this article? (I can give a more detailed reply, but I hope you don't mind answering this first). I propose we keep talking here about things more narrowly affecting this article and it's desired states. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be briefly mentioned with a link to the main coverage at Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but have you considered that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt has been covered here all along, in same detail, using the same references (in the 'Shooting' section; not added by me), specifically, before Casualties were moved from the parent article? (old revision) I'm not using this as some kind of trump card, but I hope you agree that moving that specific section out of here (leaving a mention) is at a bit of a novel idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this seems like an unnecessary fork of the discussion at Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack that covered this topic, for example [1]. This of course isn't a novel idea; I know you are at least as familiar with WP:SUMMARY as I am. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it's a novel idea because something would be summarized, but because this section has, relatively stably (having in mind that this is a relatively new, but steadily developing, article, rated B), been seen as within the scope of this article. It is within the scope of the article because it's what happened in the law enforcement response -- the action that took place as part of the response, and the immediate result. I'd really like to see how you'd summarize it here without decreasing the detail of the action part (details around police in front of the door, smashing of the window etc.), and how could the live action aspect be something that is more relevant in the 'Aftermath' article... This is a major new point of our disagreement, because now you would remove something that was here even before the disagreement; I think that it's pretty expected to break down such a proposal here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty trivial to summarize; just keep the first sentence in the section. Proposal is already open Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, where there appears to be consensus for having this content in the "aftermath" article. Feel free to continue the discussion there, though. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So One officer guarding the door told the others "They're ready to roll", and the three officers moved away from the door is prime Aftermath material according to you, okay... I'll have to think on that for a minute. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for a minute, I posted a WP:3O request. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are four participants to this discussion to date and the previous 3O request was allowed to expire. Not a good candidate for 3O. An RfC (again, here and not at this lower-visibility discussion fork) is a reasonable path forward, but since several alternatives were discussed there is would be best to narrow down the options to 2 or 3 before formulating the RfC query. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the course of the discussion a content question has narrowed down to a very clear and easy to understand issue. You are the first to argue that said section should be moved out of this article, and I'm the first to openly dispute it, and we can't agree (for example I find the idea to just keep the first sentence in the section outlandish). There's no point continuing without a third opinion, and an RfC is an overkill for this narrow question. If this individual specific issue could get separate input it would put a lot of perspective on other areas of disagreement. Hopefully someone, just anyone, will chime in. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth opinion. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here from 3O. At a first glance, I am for removal. The article is too big already making it hard to read. Also, it is rather out of the scope of the article which should focus on the law enforcement response. There is significan coverage from RS, but not all sources cover it while examining law enforcement response. Also, there is lack of an academic look (a book, a chapter or a published peer reviewed article maybe) into the topic of the article. That would resolve the issue whether a casualty should me mentioned. Until then, I lean towards strictly focusing on law enforcement respond and include only newspaper article (nyt, reuters, the guardian, wp etc) that are examining the law enforcement response because there is a danger of unconsciously walking into primary research. (not watching, please {{ping}}) Cinadon36 08:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinadon36:Thanks for the 3O when it was really needed. Would you care for a second glance? I'll start by making things a little more concrete -- let's take a specific sentence from one the disputed sections, as an example, namely, the Shooting of Ashli Babbitt: One officer guarding the door told the others "They're ready to roll", and the three officers moved away from the door. Would you say that this sentence contains information about the law enforcement response, or about something else? — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not to VQuakr's proposed deletion of Sicknick and Babbit, per standard set by RSes. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: the proposal is not to delete but cover elsewhere per WP:SUMMARY. VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We understand what it is you proposed, but it's not an improvement. Content can exist in multiple articles, we have an entire templating namespace to facilitate reuse of content wherever useful. WP:NOTPAPER. Feoffer (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmkay. 'Cause you didn't demonstrate any understanding in your first post. WP:NOTPAPER is irrelevant; summary style is ubiquitous on Wikipedia and is only useful if content is not copied exactly, template-style. The plural first person usage is weird, do you always do that? VQuakr (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

placement of suicides discussion

[edit]

While "police injuries" can be appropriate to a section titled "Securing the breached Capitol" shouldn't that generally be injuries that happen during that time? This at least seems like it ought to moved down to "immediate aftermath" after the Sicknick section. WakandaQT (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries happened during the 'Securing [of] the breached Capitol' so they're covered there. They were treated the same way in the parent article. A lot of what's said there is really descriptions of how the injuries were caused, i.e. descriptions of the action that took place, so it reads very naturally IMO. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

[edit]

Has it not now been confirmed that Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd name was given as the Capitol Police officer who shot Babbitt. This paragraph goes into some detail regarding how threatened people inside the Capitol felt and yet video shows that there were at least three obviously armed police in full riot gear standing almost behind Babbitt with others on the landing by the Babbitt window/door. The paragraph makes no mention of the considerable number of uniformed law enforcement officers on the landing, circulating freely in the immediate vicinity of Babbitt / protesters / hoards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.58.72 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the footage is clear from multiple sources in the BBC documentary "Four Hours at the Capitol" aired 10/20/2021. In addition, QAnon crazies adjacent to her have stated i that programme that she had no other law enforcers behind or to the side. 2.31.162.49 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason that readers of this article shouldn't know about the smashing glass, two fronts, charges, etc. Feoffer (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how the partial removal you had attempted (as a part of the contested split) is an improvement to this article, which isn't too long, and all of the information included seems due. Very many editors saw this content and pored over it, leading to it's current state. A split needs to move a portion of content from one page to another page, which presents a benefit in both directions, not just in one direction. I don't want to criticize your actions too much. I don't doubt that you've acted in good faith, and are still acting in good faith, as you apparently understand that there is a problem in the form of content forking, and want to help resolve it. But undoing Feoffer's reverts isn't the right way. I think that there are two good solutions: (1) transclusion per WP:SYNC, (2) RfC suggested by the DRV closer. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FBI "National Mission Force" addition then removal

[edit]

Hey FormalDude, hope you're doing well. I saw you removed information about the FBI / National Mission Force preparations for Jan 6 calling it a WP:NPOV violation, and was wondering if you could explain that further. It could probably do with some more citations but I don't see how it's biased. Thanks, – Anne drew 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is that post-2013 Newsweek is not a RS and their reporting hasn't been confirmed by any RSes. Feoffer (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you're right, I should have checked WP:RSP. Okay let's wait for better sources. – Anne drew 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne drew, I'm doing good, thanks! My main concern with the content was that it was undue weight, being sourced to a single article from Newsweek, which is not generally considered a reliable source (WP:NEWSWEEK). I think some better sources should probably be used if possible, and then it should just cover the law enforcement aspect and not pose broad POV questions such as "This same report questioned the reason as to why, if this elite unit which included the FBI HRT had been activated and pre-positioned several days in advance, why other federal security forces made little to no apparent preparation". Hope that explains my thinking a little bit more. ––FormalDude talk 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"January 6 hostage crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect January 6 hostage crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § January 6 hostage crisis until a consensus is reached. rootsmusic (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_enforcement_response_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1241037899"