Talk:Killing of Ashli Babbitt

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

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2021Articles for deletionRedirected
December 1, 2021Articles for deletionNo consensus
December 13, 2021Deletion reviewNo consensus

Title is misleading[edit]

Calling this "Killing of Ashli Babbitt" is inaccurate, in that it implies she was singled out as a target for killing when she was, in fact, a domestic terrorist who was lawfully shot by a police officer while she was violently rioting. Title should be changed to "Death of Ashli Babbitt." Moviethings (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no evidence she was a terrorist. Even if there was, killing and death are really synonymous. Nor does killing imply unlawful, I can be killed by a falling tree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She participated in the violent attempted insurrection, by definition a terroristic act, ergo she was a domestic terrorist. Moviethings (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Others might argue she participated in a riot, and no insurrection (by definition) is not terrorism, it is insurrection. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.", as far as I am aware no one has produced any evidence she did anything more than trespass. Bye the way insurrection is "insurrection a violent uprising against an authority or government.", again there is no evidence she was in fact violent. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not make our own conclusions like that. We go by what reliable sources say. Regardless, the title is correct per WP:DEATHS. Just as with the Killing of Eric Garner or Death of Jeffery Epstein EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moviethings's complaint is obviously problematic, but the current title ("Killing of") _is_ unCOMMON -- the desire to standardize nomenclature across articles is laudable, but standardization erases the nuances provided by RS in each article -- they seem to refer to the case as a "shooting" more than a "killing". It's not the end of the world, but we can do better. Feoffer (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. An essay doesn't determine "standardisation". WP:COMMONNAME, which is legit a core and consensus part of policy, clearly applies here, and strongly argues for death of Ashli Babbit. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She was killed, she did not die of natural causes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was killed; she didn't just "die". There was a human actor who caused her death, and did so through a deliberate act of violence against her. The fact that it's considered justifiable homicide ("killing someone", full stop, isn't a crime in and of itself, and most people don't necessarily consider all "killings" to be immoral; murder is, manslaughter is, negligent homicide is, etc., but not self-defense) doesn't make it not a killing. I also think "shooting of [blank]" article titles are silly as that wording obscures the lethal outcome of the shooting. You can be shot and not die. You can be killed without having been "murdered". WP Ludicer (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why wasn't the fact that she was unarmed mentioned? If she was black it would have been in the first sentence!!! 98.144.202.141 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it, give an example of an article about a black person killed in pursuance of a crime where we say in the first sentence he was unarmed? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is such a sick mind. Gross 168.91.29.146 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

line break error[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Contradictory Info on Pence Evacuating[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should the pictures be changed[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on January 10 2024[edit]

,"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree, people are killed by falling trees (for example). Killing is not a loaded term. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, so show me a source that says that killing only ever means "illegal activity". Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Picture[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt&oldid=1221593740"