Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Ashli Babbitt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Changing the name of this Page from ‘The Shooting of Ashli Babbitt’ to ‘Ashli Babbitt’.

Happy New Year to everyone. I wanted to open discussion on changing the title of this page to ‘Ashli Babbitt’.

I believe the page would be more appropriate named for Ashli Babbitt as an individual rather than for the event that first brought her name into the public sphere. More than one user has advised they may oppose such a name change, and have directed me to wp:BLP1E. After reviewing wp:BLP1E, I still feel the proposed name change would be appropriate. Out of respect for the Wikipedia community, I state my reasoning here and seek discussion in the hope of building consensus and avoiding initiating inappropriate controversy.

WP:BLP1E States: “We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.”

The use of the word ‘each’ in the introduction is conjunctive, not disjunctive, indicating that the Article be named for the event, rather than the individual, only ‘when each of three conditions is met’. Insofar as none of the three conditions appear to be met, changing the name to ‘Ashli Babbitt’ appears to be appropriate.

Condition 1 is not satisfied, as Babbitt has been subsequently covered for events other than the shooting itself. For instance, a 1/3/22 article in the Associated Press (certainly a ‘reliable source’), covered a 2016 motor vehicle incident and subsequent legal repercussions that Babbitt was involved in that clearly predate her Jan 6 2022 death (https://apnews.com/article/ashli-babbitt-capitol-siege-a15c7e52a04d932972b7a284c7a8f7df). Yes, attention was first drawn to Babbitt due to the Jan 6 shooting, but her presence in the public spear has moved beyond the single event.

Condition 2 is not satisfied, in that Babbitt has not remained a ‘low-profile individual’. As documented in the current Wiki page, Babbitt has become a cause cé·lè·bre, garnering widespread and continuing public attention.

Condition 3 is similarly not satisfied, as the event is clearly not ‘not significant’; and nor was ‘the individual's role…either not substantial or not well documented’. As is the case with the John Hinckley Jr. page, the example used to illustrate Condition 3, Babbitt should have a separate article because the single event she was first associated with, her death on Jan 6, was unquestionably a significant public event, and her role was both ‘substantial’ and ‘well documented’.

I seek engagement from my fellow contributors on this issue in the hope of building consensus.

Thank you, Chunterkap Chunterkap (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Based on the sources in their totality, the predominantly notable subject is the shooting as an event-within-an-event (a facet of the Capitol insurrection). If we tried to isolate A. Babbitt's biography we would not be able to create a viable article. We should only have one article here, and that's the event article. A governing convention on this is WP:BIO1E. Edit: another relevant convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). An essay on this topic is WP:KILLINGOF. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose As she is only really notable for being shot. If she had not been shot we most likely would not have an article about her, as we do not for thousands of other jan 6th rioters.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I believe conditions 1 and 2 are met; coverage and any change from low-profile are subsequent to, and completely due to the event itself. And I don't think condition 3 is quite met, as John Hinckley Jr.'s role was substantial in a way that Babbitt's was not. Babbitt's role was the product of ill-fortune, as she was but one of many followers of forces she did not initiate or lead as an individual. It was the product of mere chance, in that if it hadn't been her, it's very likely that some other rioter would have been the first to die when officers repelled the attack. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
BLP1E (Biographies of living people notable for only one event) is not the governing convention due to the not so recent a fact that A. Babbitt is deceased. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: Check out WP:BDP. It's been a year, so maybe BLP doesn't apply anymore, but recently dead people are covered by it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Alalch Emis. I had pointed OP earlier to BLP1E, which I now realize was an error. I agree with AE that BIO1E also suggests that a bio article here would be inappropriate.
On a related note, what about Killing of Ashli Babbitt? It's recommended by WP:DEATHS (an explanatory supplement) unless there's a clear WP:COMMONNAME, which I believe there is not. Firefangledfeathers 22:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be correct. The explanatory supplement is a little strange in this regard however as I don't see what could be wrong with a descriptor of "shooting" when a person died (as opposed to not dying) being allowable. Maybe it isn't WP:DUE to put so much weight on the method in the article title as opposed to the mere fact of death. The actual practice doesn't seem to follow that page. The page is very good, but I don't even think that many people know about it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It comes up pretty often in RM discussions for articles like this. My experience has been that actual practice is shifting slowly into alignment with DEATHS, one RM at a time. Firefangledfeathers 02:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Then I would support a move to Killing of Ashli Babbitt. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose until better sources emerge -- Right now, we just don't have the source to "tell the full story of her life". When was she even born??? RSes aren't saying, because they're not reporting on her life. That said, I certainly wouldn't be surprised for a full biography of this subject to emerge in the weeks or months ahead. Feoffer (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
She's plainly only notable for being killed on 1/6. VQuakr (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - She is notably only because of the shooting/killing. Her biography alone is not notable outside the context of the shooting. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow- an actual cogent, well-thought-out, respectful discussion. Wouldn’t have thought it possible in this day and age. I thank everyone for taking the time.

Clearly there is NOT a consensus to change the page name to the individual at this point. I am not sure I agree, but respectfully defer.

Responding to points raise, Alalch Emis is correct that WP:BLP1E, a subsection of the page ‘Biographies of living persons’, is inapplicable. Babbitt was not a living person at the time of the Page’s creation.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) appears to be the most definitive convention. This convention holds that “Article titles for events such as assaults, shootings, stabbings, deaths, suicides, executions, killings and murders” should follow the below “flowchart for determining the titles of articles about violent attacks, deaths, and similar events.”

See #Flowchart (text version) for text version of flowchart image

Proceeding through the flowchart: Is the person dead? Yes. What was the manner of death? Homicide. Was it capital punishment? No. Is there a conviction for murder? No

Applying this naming convention, the Article name should be ‘Killing of Ashli Babbitt, as suggested by Firefangledfeathers. While I would not oppose a change to this name, it is so similar to the current name as to be a difference without a distinction.

Read in conjunction, WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO lean more towards keeping the page named for the event rather than the individual, but not conclusively.

WP:BIO1E ‘People notable for only one event’, while instructive, was not dispositive. Equally persuasive arguments can be made for and against renaming based on ‘the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it’. It is credible to argue that Babbitt is only publicly significant in the context of her shooting. It is equally persuasive to argue that the ‘general rule’ ‘to cover the event, not the person’ is overcome in light of the ‘media coverage of both the event and the individual's role’ having ‘grow larger’ such that ‘separate articles [are] justified.’ As WP:BIO1E instructs, “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.” Lastly, WP:BIO1E cautions, “Editors are advised… to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people.

Per WP:PSEUDO ‘Pseudo-Biographies’, “An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context… When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography. The general test that should be applied in such cases is as follows:

1. Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event…? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not. In this case, the person may merit a mention in articles associated with the event or organization, but should not have a standalone "biography" article; an example of this may be the Bus uncle. On the other hand, if the person themselves received substantial coverage under their own name, such as Madeleine McCann or Damilola Taylor, then they may merit a biography.

2. Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the Virginia Tech massacre. The event is notable; individual people (other than the shooter, in this case) are not.

3. Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name.

The Essay on WP:KILLINGOF: "Murder of" articles was not helpful. While Babbitt’s death was a homicide (the killing of one person by another), no official authority has deemed her death a murder (the ILLEGAL killing of one person by another), much less secured a conviction of murder. In fact, Officer Byrd has been officially cleared of wrongdoing. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) discussed immediately above emphasis this distinction in Questions 2 & 4 of the flowchart.

WP:BDP ‘Recently dead or probably dead’ was also not helpful. This convention only applies to deaths that have not been officially confirmed.

In sum, no consensus has yet emerged to rename this page to ‘Ashli Babbitt’. “The general rule is to cover the event, not the person” (WP:BIO1E ‘People notable for only one event’). “When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event” (WP:PSEUDO ‘Pseudo-Biographies’). Insofar as factors do no clearly weight in favor of renaming for the individual, the page should not be renamed— at least for the time being.

I again thank everyone for taking the time to contribute, and wish everyone a happy and a healthy 2022.

Chunterkap Chunterkap (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is about the death if a person in the context of the Jan 6th 2021 protests.

If this page were an autobiography of Ashli Babbit, then it might be appropriate to rename it as suggested. AdamNealis (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Airman

Why is the Airman dinstgrade missing?--Falkmart (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashli's death scene as a clue for court verdicts

I think this is the not the first circumstance where an individual is receiving verdicts after the individual uttered they had been near the Ashli's death scene. --Mhhossein talk 05:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Rioters

@EpicWikiLad: It was you who made a change, so the onus is on you to build consensus. So, if you want to have your change preserved, please provide reliable sources for them. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 17:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mhhossein that the onus is on those supporting the change to rioter; it's a bit unclear, as this is a very new article with little stability to point to. I do support EpicWikiLad's changes, with the already-cited sources supporting "rioter" and "far-right extremists". Many more sources exist for "rioter", but I'd prefer not to overcite. Firefangledfeathers 17:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This article comprises longstanding content that was copied from Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. An IP editor made the changes from rioter to protester and from far-right extremists to conservatives on Dec. 4 (diffs: [1][2][3]). After an intermediate edit (by myself, who didn't notice these changes), these edits were reverted, restoring the longstanding form of the content. If you believe it's an improvement to the article, it's upon you Mhhossein to get consensus to change "rioter" to "protester" and "far-right extremists" to "conservatives". Under WP:BRD, the IP editor made a bold change, and this was reverted to the status-quo soon afterwards. An WP:EDITCON regarding these changes hasn't formed yet. Now the changes can be discussed, but they must be discussed substantively, on the merits, not on the conduct side, as thus far, a normal editorial process has been followed. So, in short: if you want these changes to be made, WP:ONUS is on you to explain why they're good, not on EpicWikiLad. I'll just say right away that the changes aren't good.
@Firefangledfeathers: based on this knowledge, I believe you would not actually say that the onus is on EpicWikiLad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, i wasnt the one that "made the edits", a random IP changed them without any consensus, so, its not on me to discuss changing it. EpicWikiLad (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
You are correct. Firefangledfeathers 23:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually I am not going to change the text given those edits by the random IP (which I was unaware of). I think everyone is correct here. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shooting of Ashli Babbitt's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "far-right conspiracy theory":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shooting of Andy Lopez which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, there's a proposal to move a bunch of articles. This article is included, and the proposal is to move it to Killing of Ashli Babbitt. Firefangledfeathers 05:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

The first paragraph of the lead (let alone the first sentence) is not accurately representing the title and the content, I believe. It should explicitly talk about shooting/death/killing of Ashli. See MOS:FIRST. --Mhhossein talk 03:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. Good call. Feoffer (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Feoffer. I was just thinking if it is per NPOV to describe her as a rioter. I would go with reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 04:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
RSes so-characterize Babbitt.[4][5][6] Feoffer (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Feoffer, could you evaluate sources 4 through 7 in § Manufactured MArtyr. Which ones, if any, are suitable for inclusion in the article?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have altered the first two sentences so that it covers the event of Babbitt's death–the topic of this page. The notion that she was a rioter is also in the first paragraph of is still in the lead now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

The description of Ashli Babbitt as a "rioter" is unsupported, especially given recent video accounts and testimony; therefore, in the spirit of fairness vis a vis those who identify the violent actions in the George Floyd "protests" as "protesters" or "demonstrators", the same deference should be given to Ashli Babbitt. Permits were issued for people to be there at the Capitol, and had the doors to the Capitol remain locked instead of being opened from the inside, as is now being reported, nobody would have been inside. It is a personal bias that causes Babbitt to be listed as a "rioter", while video evidence indicates she is not. YFf22a (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's not the first source says " the Capitol rioter fatally shot by police", and no permits were issued to enter the building, or try and enter the chamber.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Manufactured MArtyr

This however might be more relevant https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ashli-babbitt-trump-capitol-riot-b1988090.html.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Or look at https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/01/19/a-new-video-has-surfaced-that-shreds-the-liberal-media-narrative-about-ashli-babb-n2602006 ; townhall is not depreciated, but this article quotes extensively from epoch times, which is.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: No further sources? --Mhhossein talk 04:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I went and looked for more sources. The most well known is probably Business Insider. I had never heard of The Post Millennial before; it has a more extensive article. A list: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are talking about the new video mentioned here, then the case is not being discussed in business insider. --Mhhossein talk 16:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the sources. I struck Business Insider. Are the other sources above suitable for inclusion in the article?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover: This one seems good but I suggest asking at WP:RSN. --Mhhossein talk 02:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I asked, and the problem they found was that the sources might be usable for an article that wasn't BLP/BDP, and wasn't controversial, but that they are special interest venues without traditional editorial accountability. Two of them cite Epoch Times. So there is a consensus against using any of them for this article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You did, where and when, as I am sure the Independent is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Independent is reliable and can be used. I did not ask about it; it did not mention the new video.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Err, this seems to be about something other than the claim she is being used as a manufactured martyr by the right.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Had the sources been legitimate to use according to the rules, they would have gone hand-in-hand with your source. One view would say she's a martyr, the other view, a manufactured martyr. My proposed sources would have supported yours. But my efforts failed pretty resoundingly, didn't they?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Far-left extremists, democrats, and liberal media attempt to portray Ashli Babbitt as a domestic terrorist. However, in fact, Ashli Babbitt is a US military veteran. Video of the capital attack shows Ashli Babbitt punching a man who was breaking glass in the capital building and was attempting to assist the capital police. In the United States, a black officer can shoot an unarmed white woman and receive a medal. Especially, if the woman is a republican. On the other hand, a white person shooting an unarmed black person is viewed as a racial crime. The shooting has sparked a new era of racism in the United States, based on white race and political opponents (republicans). Camp2000 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

She could be both a terrorist and a veteran, they are not mutually exclusive. Also we need RS saying something (such as denying she was a terrorist)Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
" However, in fact, Ashli Babbitt is a US military veteran." So what? Veterans can become terrorists, and their skills are useful for criminal activities. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This doesn't really seem to be an edit request, so I'm setting the request as answered for now. --Ferien (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation overkill

It feels like this quote:

"As lawmakers were being evacuated by Capitol Police, Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door and was shot in the neck/shoulder by Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd. A Capitol Police emergency response team administered aid, and Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center where she later died; Babbitt was 35 years old.[14][15][13][68][69][70]"

does not need 6 citations. I'll leave this for someone else to deal with, as I don't like getting into political areas of Wikipedia, but figured I'd place it here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the same feeling. --Mhhossein talk 05:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

QAnon section

Someone needs to re-word the QAnon section so that it actually relates to the shooting, i.e. mentioning Babbitt's belief in the conspiracy in that section. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to set it up a bit better [12] by taking a sentence from the next section (a bit repetitive) and combining it with a bit of detail on "the storm" from the QAnon article. Somebody can probably massage that into a better job than I've done. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I think it reads a lot better already 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: I have tried to merge the section, so that it reads better. A lot of these references were about QAnon and didn't mention the shooting at all. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! The Qanon section was a quick copy and paste job, cleaning up was on my todo list. Feoffer (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

QAnon reference

The manner in which Ashli Babbit is identified in the article is done with an obvious leftist bias. “The rioter, later identified as QAnon follower Ashli Babbitt”, could have been written differently including identifying her as an Air Force veteran in that statement instead of a QAnon follower. If the media’s role is to remain impartial, this article falls far short of the mark. 73.109.240.23 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We follow the lead of WP:Reliable sources, which report her QAnon following was centrally related to her death. Feoffer (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Why? Was this relevant to what happened?Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The sources report on her tweet about "the storm", and other tweeting related to U.S. government and QAnon theories. It's a very important part of why she was there in the first place. Her service in the Air Force, not so much. (In fact, I'm not even sure why there is as much detail as there is on that facet of her life.) signed, Willondon (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed moves require consensus

A third party talk page nominator suggested, but later withdrew, a bulk move proposal; This title was withdrawn as by nom: I wasn't sure about including Ashli Babbitt here, and probably shouldn't have, as it is an admittedly more controversial case. If we can agree to move the rest, I'll strike it from the nomination. Feoffer (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If the shooting was intentional and the person who was shot subsequently died, then the move shouldn't be particularly controversial, regardless of the persons who were implicated. (this applies to all articles involved in the proposal)
I just had a look at the bulk move proposal and I could see that all articles were moved to "Killing of..." instead of this one. IMO, this is regrettable since, whatever one thinks of Babbitt, well, she undoubtedly died. Therefore, I'd say "Killing" is more precise and accurate.
The current situation gives the impression - though this was certainly not the desired effect - that Wikipedia considers Babbitt's death to be somehow less tragic than those of other human beings (disclaimer : in case anyone wonders or cares about my opinion, I think that Babbitt's death was a tragedy and that the police officer was doing his job, so these are not mutually exclusive). I mean, we have a page called Killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Gaddafi was a much more controversial (for lack of a better word) person than Babbitt. So in case there should be another discussion about this specific article, I would support the move. Psychloppos (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Twsabin: in case my humble opinion matters. Psychloppos (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Psychloppos:Of course it matters. This is currently discussed at WP:ANI#Move warring at Killing of Ashli Babbitt (/ Shooting of Ashli Babbitt). I await a resolution there that will uphold process. twsabin 17:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I would think "Death of..." would be more fitting for a title, as the manner in which she taken out is not of great importance. ValarianB (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not like she died of cancer. On the contrary, the manner in which she died is important, precisely because the case is so controversial. And anyway, lawful or not, a killing is still a killing. Psychloppos (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure that really addresses the point. Yes, she died during a violent altercation, that is important. But whether it was via a gun, a knife, or a cricket bat is the immaterial part. "Shooting of..." highlights the least important aspect of the topic. ValarianB (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, what's important is that she was killed. If she had been just wounded, her case would not warrant a page of its own. Psychloppos (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No name will please everyone. But she was shot and killed (she did not just die) so it must be either shooting of or killing of.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Above all, we should try to be consistent. If several other articles were renamed "Killing of...", we should also rename this one lest we want to suggest that Babbitt's death was a "lesser" killing than the others. Psychloppos (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree we should have consistency, but I am unsure that we call all fatal shootings "Killing of...".Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree about that. However, it all started with this proposal. We should try to be consistent with the result. Psychloppos (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
As some noted there, this is the problem with bulk moves, not every page with that title gets moved. This one was mentioned, and thus the consensus was "The result of the move request was: moved" so this page should be moved on those grounds.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly; nothing more, nothing less. Psychloppos (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:, @Psychloppos: Repeat those arguments in the ANI thread, so that this can more easily be duly resolved. Feoffer will still be able to start a WP:Move review. Thank you 18:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
An ANI is for discussing user conduct, not discussing page moves.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Twsabin: I don't know how these ANI things work. Am I allowed to post there or am I too "involved" ? If this is not the place to discuss page movies as Slatersteven says, can't we just resolve the issue here and move on to more rewarding activities ? Psychloppos (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Psychloppos: We can't resolve the issue here, because we can only discuss things in this manner informally, and RM is a formal process (request -> discussion -> close -> review of close at move review). The formal process has concluded and it was challenged, but the way in which it was challenged was not procedurally valid (you can't simply undo the formal outcome yourself). You can state your opinion on the matter of Feoffer's conduct in the ANI thread, while stating that you're involved insofar you support the move to "Killing of ..." substantively. twsabin 18:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, "We can't resolve the issue here..." is plainly incorrect. "Procedurally invalid" isn't a thing: see WP:IAR, which is policy. But we don't need to invoke IAR anyways; we can establish a new consensus for an article title at any time here on this talk page, especially since so many editors objected to the way the previous discussion was bundled. This article talk page is actually the best location to discuss the article title. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
That's what I originally thought. Anyway, I've already said what I had to say and I just hope this get out of this impasse as soon as possible. Psychloppos (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Twsabin: I just left my opinion on the ANI. I think this conflict should not escalate further and be resolved ASAP. Psychloppos (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved again

@Somedifferentstuff: can you please revert your move? Consensus for "Killing of" developed in an RM. It's linked in this page's header and here. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I undid the move. Somedifferentstuff, please check the move histories at minimum before moving pages. Thanks EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate and disingenuous

This paints a very rough picture of what actually happened when the protestors were ALLOWED inside the capitol building. Obviously whoever edited this page has a specific narrative they’re pushing. 96.230.200.69 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, its called reflecting what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The IP probably means this video evidence of the crowd being invited in..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Giuliani bit

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Hello, I just noticed that you had removed the part about Giuliani's remarks. I understand your point and I won't put it back myself. However, even though Giuliani's remarks are crazy I don't know if they really qualify as "fringe", precisely because he is so high-profile. Also, please note that I added that bit precisely because I found that claim to be outrageous: I thought that it illustrated how Babbitt's death is being used to promote preposterous narratives, just like Lin Wood's remarks about her death being a "false flag" operation (which is completely contradictory with Giuliani's claims, by the way). This is the reason why I found this interesting, not because I think Giuliani is right in any way or because I want to promote him. But if you think that's not useful, then I'm ok with this. Psychloppos (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks....and if you have RSs that themselves say her death is being exploited for political messaging by Giulania or anyone else, we should report ojn the fact that exploitive messaging is happening. But its important to let the RSs tell the story about the exploitation while refraining from amplifying any WP:FRINGE messages the exploiters are pushing out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I thought it was pretty much self-evident that Giuliani's claims were grossly exploitative, but I understand your point. Psychloppos (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Possibly helpful FYI tip on disinformation... in the process of fighting disinformation do not repeat it. I got this from Linguist George Lakoff. E.g.
WRONG
Me: This is facebook.
You: No this NOT facebook. This is Wikipedia
RIGHT (does not repeat the BS)
Me: This is facebook.
You: No, this is Wikipedia
MUCH BETTER (starts by saying the other person is right.)
Me: This is facebook.
You: You are right to say this is social media, but we're actually doing Wikipedia
Obviously doing an encyclopedia sometimes we will include the BS while talking about things, its kind of context dependent.
Thanks for caring
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. Psychloppos (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

She was shot in the left shoulder

Someone please change this detail to where she was actually shot. By having it say she was shot in the neck/shoulder helps spread misinformation that is being distributed by many supporters of hers, conspiracy theorists et cetera in order to help give them more of an excuse to go after people who are against their cause 2601:443:47F:2130:59EC:B7C6:8A9E:8E4B (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Tnx, any reliable sources backing your claim? --Mhhossein talk 12:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

isn't this rather one sides and editorial

edit the article to contain only documented facts not editorial opinions 2603:6011:8C06:6200:4D4:4A79:A545:D62A (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia documents the sum of ALL human knowledge, and that includes opinions. They are often more interesting and important than the bare facts. They help us understand the nuances and meanings of those facts..
I am developing an essay about Why Wikipedia documents nonsense and lies. It touches on this subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
What do we include that is not a documented fact? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Ashli Babbitt default on a $29,000 U.S. gov't loan???

This article does not mention much about what Ashli Babbitt did after leaving the U.S. Air Force. I have heard that she tried starting a pool cleaning business - which if true, I find incredible since she would have to compete with Mexicans etc. I have also heard that she in addition to investing her life savings, that she took out a $29,000 bank loan which was backed by the U.S. gov't. The story I heard is that the business flopped, and she couldn't pay back the bank loan, so the bank turned to the U.S. gov't for reimbursement, and the U.S. gov't was therefore after her for collection, i.e. would have garnished wages, etc. If she could only get a McDonald's-type job, she would have been paying off the debt for up to 20 years (considering interest and legal fees). If true, then NO WONDER she hated the U.S. gov't. She was screwed. If true, then the way I see it is, her big problem is that she had no experience with capitalism when she left the Air Force. It's no wonder she failed. A pool cleaning company. Of all the things to go into. I could see it if her family had been in the business for decades and she had experience in that business, but it looks like she was green in the business. Anybody know anything?? This article makes no mention at all of any work experience after the Air Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.67.45 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I have read that, but I am not sure it is relevant enough for me to dig for sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how all of these is relevant to the shooting.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
So you think pool cleaners, backed by VA can’t thrive? Bastropcc (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, it might explain where her great anger with the government came from. I always wondered that. I mean, she wasn't just protesting - she was on her way into breaking into Congress, which I find shocking (I found the whole thing shocking). Anyway, I found this - her business was apparently failing, and she owed over $60,000 (not just $29,000). Most people who own businesses which are failing are usually not in a good frame of mind, so I sort of doubt that she was either:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/who-was-ashli-babbitt.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.67.45 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

But this does not address the core concearn, what does this tell us about her shooting? This just seems like rather trivial information.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Just trivia. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, irrelevant trivia.Maria Gemmi (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Real name

She was born Ashlianaise Matis, 10/1985. She married Timothy McEntee, then Aaron Babbitt.

a woman says she’s her mother and attending rallies going by Micki Witthoeft. Bastropcc (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggest edit for Clarity

"She was part of a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump who breached the United States Capitol building seeking to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election."

This makes it sound like Trump personally breached the Capitol rather than his supporters as intended. Perhaps the following would be clearer:

"She was part of a mob, supporting U.S. President Donald Trump, who breached the United States Capitol building seeking to overturn Donald Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election."

There might be an even better more clear way to write this, but I definitely think the current way is confusing and unclear if you don't already know what happened. 136.49.2.59 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

The name of the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt should be included. It’s a verified fact. His name is Michael Byrd Rlaverty2 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The name is already there. Keep looking.$chnauzer 23:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Putin's reaction by the cited source is wrong

The sentence "Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the shooting of Babbitt, describing it as an 'assassination'" is highly interpreted view or not true based on only the source given (AP Article). In the source Putin does not either directly condemn it nor directly describe it as assassination. And the source does not claim those either.

The AP article refers to NBC interview, which gives more context. Search for "Did you order the assassination of the woman" for context. Putin made a rhetoric counterquestion to make a point how absurd interviewer's question about Putin ordering assassination of Navalny was (in his opinion).

I suggest someone with editing abilities remove the sentence from the article.

Wekkolin (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We really need to look at the full sentence that you quote only in part. Putin said: "Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman?" Putin's statement is full of misrepresentation. Babbitt didn't just "walk into Congress," of course. He also defends the rioters, claiming that they were there merely to express their political views. Putin's use of the word of "assassination" seems to me to be part of the deliberate misrepresentation in his full statement and should stand. 98.251.225.38 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

IN the second paragraph "Attempt to overturn the 2020a election" the article states then president Donald Trump " pursued an aggressive and unprecedented[14] effort to overturn the election." When in fact this has not been proven as factual. You presume his intent and make a false statement in doing so. As with most liberal websites, I see that wikipedia is anti Trump rather than in search of the truth and reporting factual event. 69.133.175.150 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRUTH. We say what reliable sources say. And they say that he attempted to overturn the election. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Unarmed

It should say in the first sentence that Babbit was unarmed. Also, I didn't see if the article says the name of the police officer who shot her, but his name has been publicly revealed and he had a history of disciplinary trouble. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We do name him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete References About Ashli

Neglected to mention Ashli was unarmed and a veteran. 64.98.226.159 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No we say she served in the USAF, and that she was unarmed at the time of the shooting. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If you watch the video you will see she wasn’t climbing through. You will also see 3 police officers step away from the barracaded door just a few seconds before she was shot. If you check the records you will find no guns were used by protesters and this wax not an insurrection as the FBI stated because if it was then investigators would find 12 FBI agents who were part of the protest. Just stating fact… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:800:8381:6560:1473:B872:8172:F7F (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you're really not. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Stand-alone page for Ashli Babbit

Is it the time to dedicate a non-redirect stand alone page to Ashli Babbit? --Mhhossein talk 05:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

She is not independently notable afaict EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It was the case back in the beginning but according to WP:1E, "however, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That's how Kim Davis got her own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @EvergreenFir:, please let me know what you think of the my previous comment. Best. --Mhhossein talk 05:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue may be what we write and name it. The killing may now be notable as she has become a cause célèbre among Conservatives. The problem is she really notable, or is the way she has been mythologised? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
To gather more viewpoints from the editors, maybe we can open a wider discussion with a split tag on the page. --Mhhossein talk 07:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

She unarmed and was murdered for tresspassing

Allow both sides to give information not just the left. No one was armed while trespassing on the capitol and only Ashli Babbit was killed by a firearm so lets tell the truth. 172.79.140.223 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well murder is a crime and no one had been prosecuted for it, so that would violate wp:blp. We say she was not armed. 12:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourteen people tied to the Jan. 6 attack are facing federal charges related to bringing or using dangerous weapons inside the building and two are facing firearms-related charges, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A Nazi in See Also...

I think it's a bit distasteful for there to be a link to a Nazi in the See Also section. While the circumstances might be similar in certain aspects (i.e., martyrdom, though I'd argue this woman is totally forgotten already in 2023 and never approached true martyrdom off of twitter), it was clearly put there by someone whose goals were, shall we say, likely not unbiased. This is due to the fact that everyone loves to call each other a Nazi these days, so any time I see something like this on a politically charged page it's an immediate red flag. I know I'm not alone in thinking this. Binglederry (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Shame some sources draw the direct link [[13]] [[14]], so this seems an appropriate see also. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
However as we mention this in the body (and link to the article) we do not need this also, it is redundant. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Whoops I missed that. The link is much better in the body with that context. Binglederry (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

The page states that far right media attempts to depict her as a martry and patriot. Can we change it to read far left media attempts to depict her as a domestic terrorist? New video has surfaced showing that she was helping capital police officers. In addition, another video shows her punishing a man who breaking the glass, in an attempt to stop him. Truth is that she IS a patriot and military veteran. Left wing propaganda such as NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. depict her as a terrorist. She was unarmed and killed by a police officer of a different race who ambushed her as he hid in corner. Killed for her political beliefs and a possibly for her race. A potential hate crime. 2600:1700:B4A0:FEE0:741C:4A00:27B2:3EA8 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:RS and WP:NPOV Cannolis (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"far left media" There is no such thing. Corporate-owned media are firmly right-wing. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2600:1700:B4A0:FEE0:741C:4A00:27B2:3EA8, we are discussing sources for the video you mentioned in § Manufactured MArtyr. Which of sources 4 through 7, if any, are suitable for inclusion in the article? Dimadick & Cannolis, you are also invited to evaluate the sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

She was a domestic terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.136.197.39 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

My name is Gerhardt Fox. I did an interview with David Gotfredson from CBS 8 about the Ashli Babbitt fundraiser. I created JusticeForJ6.com in May 2021 and had credit for my IP stolen by MATT Braynard (not Michael Braynard.) I have a receipt showing this and a pending trademark with the USPTO whoch I was forced to file to protect donors from being scammed with my IP. There have been significant developments in Ashli’s case which should be updated in this article. The lawsuit has been dismantled. Court records show the family attempted through deception to seize the half million dollar legal fund from the law firm. The GiveSendGo page is now defunct, suggesting the funds have now been moved or refunded to donors. JusticeForJ6 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Which* JusticeForJ6 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is the article for which I interviewed with CBS 8: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/investigations/ashli-babbitts-wrongful-death-lawsuit-b-in-limbo/509-0f78308d-9cf5-48f1-9769-9635e6d811aa. In the article are court records pertaining to this article. It doesn't require a change from x to y, but rather additional information to be added to the article. This is simply the latest installment of the saga. The article I linked is by David Gotfredson who has previously been cited on this page. It is considered by Wikipedia to be credible. JusticeForJ6 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Reading over the article, not seeing anything to suggest our readers need to know about the on-going dispute about raised funds. As a side note, the article uncritically quotes a person who mistakenly claims Babbitt was unarmed when she was actually carrying a knife. Feoffer (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I am that person. I have never heard she was carrying a knife and I was directly involved in coaching the mother for her appearances and spoke to her and other activists regularly. I'm certainly interested to see new information. I do disagree and believe that it is pertinent to the article to note that the attorneys have withdrawn. Whether or not the drama surrounding that withdrawal is pertinent to the "Killing of Ashli Babbitt" is another matter. I'm asking the editors to examine the court documents and the article to update it as appropriate. I will not be making edits personally. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's editing process and have no desire to get deeply involved. I am simply bringing you information which the family has tried to conceal. JusticeForJ6 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
So then we have a clear wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I have never heard she was carrying a knife and I was directly involved in coaching the mother
It's covered in our article, she had a "para-force" knife on her at the time she breached: [15][16][17][18][19]
it is pertinent to the article to note that the attorneys have withdrawn. But they were never retained, were they? They just solicited funds on the family's behalf. I've never seen a reliable source suggest there's any possibilty of a successful cause of action in the case -- an American civillian can "stand their ground" in their own front yard, so it's quite difficult imagine a US court siding against an armed officer of the law during a lockdown and evacuation of a restricted area of the US Capital. But anyway -- do you know of other reliable sources about the fundraising or lawsuit. Any news updates since February? Feoffer (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

line break error

in the fouth paragraph of the shooting section I get a free standing first quotation mark in the sentence "the police "[r]ecovered a 'Para Force' folding knife in Ms. Babbitt's pants pocket" after she was shot." before the [r]ecovered. Maybe someone can fix that? Stonefrog (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory Info on Pence Evacuating

The Capitol Attack information reports that Pence was evacuated (as was reported by RS early on) but we now know that he remained in the capitol, which the same section also states. The first statement should probably be modified to reflect that. Context: "The Congressional proceedings were suspended, the legislators were taken to secure locations, and Mike Pence and later Nancy Pelosi were evacuated. Speaker Pelosi was evacuated from the Capitol complex. It was reported that Vice President Pence had been also evacuated, but he remained in a secure location inside the Capitol." Macrobunker (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

not sure what is going on by when I go to edit the disputed item does not appear, it seems to truncate half the text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the source, it appears that part of that section is excerpted from another article, and the second statement I quoted was added directly to the page. So I'm guessing either the other article should be edited or that section of the excerpt removed from this page. Macrobunker (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the pictures be changed

Should the pictures on the infobox be changed from the same ones that are displayed on the infobox of the main article to a picture of Babbitt immediately before being shot, or something else related to the shooting itself? MountainDew20 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

MountainDew20 do you have specific freely available candidate images you are proposing to use? VQuakr (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on January 10 2024

,"Killing" (headline/ title) shall be replaced by "Death". Killing is simply the wrong word as it is vastly understood and commonly used for an illegal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A8D3:F100:3C92:5217:804E:3A1E (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but the bold title should generally match the article name, so really this needs a WP:RM to fix. Currently this follows the flowchart in an essay, which here pretty brazenly conflicts with a core policy, to wit WP:COMMONNAME. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The current page title is a result of this mass move discussion. If you feel like there was insufficient participation or consensus was interpreted incorrectly, feel free to take any steps you believe are necessary. I also don't see how there is any conflict with WP:COMMONNAME; there are plenty of sources that use the word "killed" to describe the incident. In the meantime, I'm closing this request, pending further discussion and consensus. Liu1126 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, people are killed by falling trees (for example). Killing is not a loaded term. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Which is an especially non-compelling counter, as your hypothetical is not even "consistent with WP:DEATH" (i.e. the essay), much less with WP:COMMONNAME (the policy). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, so show me a source that says that killing only ever means "illegal activity". Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Show me where any such claim is made. Then -- or better, instead -- respond to the actual points offered up. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It is down to those who want to make a change to offer up arguments (backed by RS). Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Well indeed, and I already have offered a compelling argument directly from WP policy, and you responded at a complete tangent to it. On RS yes, and LMGTFY. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
No you have made an argument, I do not find it compelling as you have not provided any reason to assume that killing means illegal activity. So until you do I object to this suggestion, and really have no more to say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
We specifically considered COMMONNAME in the last RM. If there's evidence that wasn't considered back then, we'd welcome its presentation here for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Common practice is discussed at WP:DEATHS. There's a flow chart and everything. WP:UCRN notes that ambiguous titles should not be used, and both formulations are equally recognizable, so we're compliant with the policy as well. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture

Do we not have a picture of the victim? Can we find one? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

She was a domestic terrorist. She acted to the definition of a domestic terrorist. 2601:544:C100:A450:8D1E:45B2:65FB:B645 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
If you are saying we should refer to her as a domestic terrorist please provide reliable sources which use this phrase. Wikipedia only repeats what reliable sources have said, we don't draw inferences based on the definition of a term. Jamedeus (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt/Archive_1&oldid=1253860256"