Talk:Death of Brian Sicknick/Archive 1

Notability Tag
Hi I noticed that you placed a notability tag on the article. Would you please elaborate on how this article may not meet our notability guidelines? Perhaps it might be helpful to discuss at WP:AFD, if you plan to submit a deletion request. Edge3 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! I have no plans to submit a deletion request, but I did feel it was worth notifying other editors that notability requirements may not have been met here. Specifically, if this was nominated for AFD, I have to imagine they would cite WP:BLP1E. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying so quickly! I'm aware of WP:BLP1E, but in this case, I believe the article is warranted because Sicknick will lie in honor at the Capitol. We already have articles for officers who have died under similar circumstances (Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson), and an AFD discussion was held at Articles for deletion/John Gibson (police officer). Hopefully, these circumstances will be enough to withstand an AFD, should an editor decide to submit a deletion request in the future. Thanks again! Edge3 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that prior discussion. Good to know a similar article was already discussed, so that removes any notability concerns I have at this time. Cheers! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt was shot at the capital and her article did not meet the threshold of notable persons. Brian Sicknick died of a blood clot leading to a stroke a day after the storming of the capital and meets the notable threshold. That should not be seen as an endorsement for the deletion of Brian Sicknick's article, but there is a double standard here that does not align with neutrality or impartiality, since deletion of the Ashli Babbitt article can be seen as attempting to memory hole by a subversive element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C3:5500:C026:F6ED:36A:EBEC (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Brian Sicknick's article was not created until the evening of January 30, after congressional leaders announced that he would be lying in honor at the Capitol. He meets the notability guidelines because he has lain in honor at the Capitol, which is a rare honor given only to five people thus far. In contrast, Ashli Babbitt has not received such an honor. Edge3 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Being lain in honor is not the notability criteria, rather, people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage, per WP:BIO. 23:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjen (talk • contribs)
 * Well, both Ashli Babbitt and Brian Sicknick received a lot of press coverage. (There were stories about her on the news.) See also the "keep" comments on Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt. I think the key differentiator here is that Sicknick received honors and recognition that Babbit did not. Edge3 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not questioning that they received lots of press coverage, nor arguing that they aren't notable, but just making a matter of fact statement about Wikipedia policy for notability. Terjen (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it came up here, Ashli Babbitt certainly merits a page in the same vein as others killed by the police, as in Breonna Taylor, et al. Sych (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . If you think that there ought to be an article about Ashli Babbitt, then write one that fully complies with policies and guidelines. By the way, the article is Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * From reading this sentence, it seems writing one would be a waste of time: “Ashli Babbitt was shot at the capital and her article did not meet the threshold of notable persons.” The notability seems pretty obvious to me since she was the only person directly intentionally killed during an important event. As you point out, Breonna Taylor has a page with the title of “The Shooting of ...” which is the name one for Ashli Babbitt might have too. Her death has been largely ignored by the powers in the media because it does not suit their plot development script, and Wiki is sadly using that as an excuse to omit an important event of the year. Independent judgement seems in short supply as of late. The entire Capitol now has twice as many troops patrolling it as are in Afghanistan, and the death of the only person to be killed during the event that causes such fear from elected officials is dismissed as lacking notability. Didn’t used to be like this around here.

Sych (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is now a good article, but this needs revisiting - based on what seems to be quite clear consensus across various pages, lying in state in the rotunda is not presumed notability and does not override BIO1E. Unless Mr. Sicknick meets notability guidelines in another way, not just "presumed" for some reason but that actually eclipses and overcomes BIO1E (as well as meeting GNG), I intend to nominate this article for AfD assuming the current two conclude how they are appearing to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

blunt force trauma and fire extinguisher reports
There were articles claiming he died from blunt force trauma via being hit in head with fire extinguisher. That seems to have been abandoned now but shouldn't we be explaining that period of reporting? WakandaQT (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the earlier reports of him getting hit with a fire extinguisher have since been withdrawn, but it's still worthwhile to include in the article. Edge3 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's now been confirmed that he was not hit by a fire extinguisher, we absolutely need to change the wording as it leaves it to be open-ended when we know that turned out to not be true.Also using "reportedly" is a weasel wording it is factual. Could a more experienced editor fix this? I think something along lines of:

"Early reports stated the cause of death to be due to blunt force but medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma."

Here is the quote from the article: "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true." https://www.kcra.com/article/investigators-struggle-to-build-murder-case-in-death-of-us-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick/35397426# Pformenti (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the content yourself. If there's anything that needs to be fixed, another editor will likely be available to assist you. Edge3 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would love to but I get reverted and accused of vandalism when I take the initiative and fear having my edit privileges removed. Pformenti (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm happy to help. I've just reorganized the article and added some content. Please feel free to take a look and let me know if you have additional suggestions. Edge3 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The video that shows a fire extinguisher being thrown onto the heads of Capitol Police officers outside shows that they were wearing helmets. So one would not expect to see scrapes or bruising. It's reported that three officers were hit by it. There were also at least another two violent incidents inside with fire extinguishers. Two law enforcement officials told the AP and the Times (presumably the same officials, but not necessarily) that he was struck with a fire extinguisher. One official says there's no autopsy evidence of blunt force trauma. So what makes the case closed? What warrants saying he wasn't, in our article, without a source? ABC reports one protester who threw a fire extinguisher is in jail --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * CNN, March 15, 2021: "Investigators determined that initial reports suggesting Sicknick had been struck with a fire extinguisher weren't true." Terjen (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death
I believe at this point it's fair to say he died of a stroke following exposure to pepper spray. I know there hasn't been anything official yet, but we know he had a stroke and then died. I don't think it's rocket science to say the two are connected somehow. -- Kendrick7talk 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The medical examiner hasn't released its findings regarding the cause of death, according to CNN and FOX. The investigation remains open, and while they have speculated on the involvement of pepper spray, nothing has been finalized or ruled out. Edge3 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are entitled to conclude anything you wish about the cause of his death, and it is certainly possible that you are correct. But this does not belong on Wikipedia, unless and until high quality reliable sources say so definitively. That is required by Wikipedia's core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. One more question though: should we still be quoting the retracted part of the NYT story in ref #9? It may cause some confusion, although there's something to be said for tracing the history of the confusion here. The current version of the article/quote now reads "Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official." -- Kendrick7talk 16:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you were still expecting a response, as I think some subsequent edits have already started to address the concerns you raised. But in any case, there's a thread below that also touches on the issue of the cause of death and medical examiner's reports. Edge3 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

why is there so much qualitative injection RE "rioters Khater and Tanios"? what relevance do they have in light of the cause of death? surely the presence of insurrectionists would have encompassed the job of the capitol police; why is there a need for this asterisk? are our men in uniform not heroes?

Medical Examiner
I deleted the sentence in the article that said "and medical examiners found no signs of blunt force trauma." That is not true and it is misleading to readers. The CNN article linked to that sentence actually says, "In Sicknick's case, it's still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner's review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process." The article goes on to say "According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma." In our wiki piece the person who wrote the sentence I deleted did not mention "According to one law enforcement official..." but instead left the reader falsely thinking the medical examiner issued a report that said that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Thanks for that edit! I've modified the new sentences a bit, and I also restored the reference to blunt force trauma to the subsequent sentence. I think the new version of the article is much closer to the sources cited, but feel free to make further edits! Edge3 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, your revision to my sentence looks perfect. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Washington Post, March 15, 2021: "Investigators have also determined that he did not die of blunt-force trauma, people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation." Terjen (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the medical examiners' report dropped today. Someone might want to add it to the article. Pkeets (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stated cause of death would be nice. Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Homicide Investigation
Added a new section in the article "Homicide Investigation." I also moved a sentences from "Storming of the Capitol" that begins with "On February 10, it was reported that the..." into my new section to make the article flow better. I feel the reader must be told there is an ongoing homicide investigation and that is the reason the cause of death is not publicly released at this time. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've copyedited it a bit, and I added some citation needed tags for the quotations in the section you added. Would you happen to have sources for those? Edge3 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copyedits. I added the missing citations. Leaving them out was an oversight on my part. Sorry. Also, I don't know how to condense a citation that is used multiple times, back-to-back, so if you feel the citations need to be condensed, please do so. Thanks again! BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for adding the citations. I've consolidated the duplicate citations through the Visual Editor, since you can copy/paste the citations, and the editor will automatically consolidate them for you. However, if you normally edit through source code, you can consult WP:REFNAME for more guidance. Edge3 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement of the Officer’s Mother
I think it’s relevant that the officer’s mother had made a public statement that she believed her son died from a stroke when NY Times and other media outlets were stoking false stories. Later the UK Guardian reported this:

“The mother of the US Capitol police officer who died following the riot on January 6 believes that her son succumbed to a fatal stroke - that he was not bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher as reported.”

It tells people just how this was reported by the media, which itself is part of the incident. It deserves its own page really, but that’s another issue.

Sych (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a source? You're welcome to add the content yourself! Edge3 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Poorly written sentence
Could someone fix this please? "Could not find lack of evidence" is a double negative, which states the medical examiner found evidence. "On February 2, CNN reported, citing a law enforcement official, that since medical examiners could not find lack of evidence of blunt force trauma in Sicknick, investigators concluded that being struck with an extinguisher was not the cause of death;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:B95B:6A67:98DC:B1EE (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Sicknick → Death of Brian Sicknick – Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is only notable due to a single event involving his death and the reaction to his death, and our usual article naming convention is to have the title reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree - this should be nominated for AfD and merged into the Capitol Storming article - that is the notable event. Unfortunately, his death is not independently notable either - so if it needs merged it should be to the storming article. I recommend waiting for the two AfDs active on police who lay in state at the rotunda after their deaths for more clear opinion from the rest of community. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I view that is a separate issue. Perhaps his death isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, but as long as this article exists, it should be at the proper title. If you feel the topic does not meet our notability guidelines, then you can nominate it at AfD, but I'd prefer you wait to do that until after this RM nomination has run its course. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree to renaming, as Sicknick's only claim to fame comes from the circumstances of his death. Don't delete; he laid in state in the Capitol, which makes him a member of a very small group, and his individual death is the subject of continuing coverage (including today's coroner report and the the ensuing trial).Mcrsftdog (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given he died of natural causes, I don't think it makes sense to have a whole article dedicated to this event. It should be covered in the Capitol Storming page. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * His individual death was the subject of plenty of coverage when it was thought to have been a homicide. Even as it stands now, there's probably gonna be coverage of why it was called a homicide. Mcrsftdog (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the article should remain, but should be done so in regards to the dangers of Fake News and using "reliable sources" that are completely and totally unreliable and lie to push narratives for 4 months based on "anonymous sources" which may or may not actually exist to try and falsely impeach a President and vilify his supporters. I think this article should make clear that the fire extinguisher lie was a hoax pushed by the media and later found to be completely false. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely not going to happen (because, among other things, Wikipedia isn't for advocating your worldview), and making comments like this is actually likely to sway people towards keeping this article when it should be deleted, but not for any of the reasons you attempt to mention. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what world view you think I claim to hold (other than being interested in facts not feelings), but one thing which is abundantly clear now is that the claims made about Brian Sicknick was a hoax pushed to fulfill an agenda, falsely impeach a President (acquitted... that's a fact) and "reliable sources" are now proven to be completely unreliable sources. This fake news story should have been killed off months ago when no video evidence was presented despite body cams being worn. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like the original intent of the article was for advocating a worldview. Now that the agenda of a fake insurrection is no longer needed you now indeed to memory-hole this, which, of course, is just another method of pushing a worldview. 63.155.50.234 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and, with the proper rewriting to go with it so it could reflect other articles of a similar nature. Love of Corey (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the nominator's interpretation of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Edge3 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Renaming would make the article title longer, but would have little or no practical effect on scope of article. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Why adding Natural Causes to Lede is Important
We need to make clear that Brian Sicknick died from natural causes in the lede as there are conspiracy theories still being pushed by some that he was killed by the actions of others. From the CBS cited article: "The "natural" classification is used "when a disease alone causes death," the medical examiner's office said in the summary. "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural." There is no other interpretation required here 118.208.30.208 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede already states that "the District of Columbia medical examiner concluded that Sicknick had died of natural causes". Terjen (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that, but I think it should be mentioned in the first sentence as this what he is most famous for now. Also the wording of the last sentence is a little strange as it reads. "The men were not charged with murder; the District of Columbia medical examiner concluded that Sicknick had died of natural causes", they were also not charged of burglary, extortion, insurrection or other crimes other than assault so it seems a bit suggestive, but perhaps that is because of previous false allegations. Maybe someone should look at cleaning that up as well. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to just make my point more clear on the final sentence: "The men were not charged with murder; the District of Columbia medical examiner concluded that Sicknick had died of natural causes" The first problem with this statement is it makes the suggestion there WAS a murder. We know that not to be the case. And so if there was NO murder in the first place, then why is it even mentioned? The words "not charged with murder" is also a loaded term IMHO. It would be the equivalent of someone writing on say Tom Cruises wiki page that he has not been charged with murder. A factually and verify-ably true statement. But by sheer mention of the words, makes an indirect allegation that they could or should have been charged with such an offense. With murder now ruled out 100% by the autopsy, surely this last sentence should be rewritten?118.208.30.208 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone can see your "User Contributions" history, you know. It's pretty clear what you're trying to do. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:D20:DD2E:EE0B:A291 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is there's something in there questioning the medical examiner's report? It's issued, it's done. Odd people giving their opinion about it shouldn't be included in the article.
 * Surely the paragraph about Wecht should be removed, too. Clearly some people don't want to give up suggesting Sicknick was murdered, but the medical examiner's report makes that seem irresponsible now.

Strength of bear spray vs. pepper spray
Looks like we have a potential dispute—see, , and. I know that you two have also submitted edits previously regarding this statement. Do we actually need to include in the article a comparison between bear spray and pepper spray? Ultimately, Sicknick appears to have been killed by a chemical irritant, and I'm not sure that it helps the reader to know which one was stronger. Plus, we are already providing wikilinks to pepper spray and bear spray. Edge3 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * From our article on bear spray and cited sources, one can learn it is a subtype of pepper spray with a strength limited to 1–2% capsaicin and a delivery mechanism designed for deterring bears. It's moot now that prosecutors have revealed Khater actually used defensive pepper spray, not the bear spray he also carried. Terjen (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Media Criticism
With the Sickinck death narrative having pivoted multiple times, a media critical perspective is gaining prominence: Terjen (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Glenn Greenwald The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick's Death. And They Just Got Caught.
 * Reason Magazine The Confusion Surrounding Brian Sicknick's Death Was a Failure of Government Transparency
 * Politifact Update: Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes
 * Politifact What we know about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s death
 * New York Times Officer Brian Sicknick: What We Know About His Death
 * Washington Times Glenn Greenwald blasts NYT for 'weaponizing' Capitol Officer Brian Sicknick's death
 * Mediaite Glenn Greenwald Rails at Media Over ‘Completely Exploited’ Death of Capitol Officer Brian Sicknick
 * Glenn Greenwald The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot
 * National Review The Times Corrects the Record on Officer Sicknick’s Death, Sort Of
 * Snopes Did U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Die After Hit With a Fire Extinguisher?
 * BBC Brian Sicknick: US Capitol riot policeman 'died of natural causes'
 * New York Post Will the Times apologize for lying about Officer Sicknick’s death?
 * The Federalist Sen. Ron Johnson Demands Capitol Police Explain False Claim That Officer Sicknick Died Due To Jan. 6 Rioters
 * National Review The Brian Sicknick Case Shows How the Media Make Their Own Reality
 * Newsweek Fact Check: Was Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Killed By Rioters?
 * Washington Examiner Byron York's Daily Memo: Finally, the facts about Officer Sicknick's death


 * Would you like to add this content to the article? You're more than welcome to add a section on media criticism. If anyone else has concerns about it, then we can always discuss it here. Edge3 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Contributions and participation from other editors of course also appreciated. Terjen (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - refer to WP:RSP - some of your sources are reliable, some of your sources are unreliable. Green favoured over yellow and red. Yellow favoured over red.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Those are actually Terjen's sources, not mine. Edge3 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Edge3. - when you return to work on this, see my comment above.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 06:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the referenced articles are opinion and/or published in sources not considered WP:RS. It comes with the territory. Terjen (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't get to appreciate each other's hard work as much as we should, so here goes: Thank you for taking the time to build the new section showing the progression of the reporting. Terjen (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - you're welcome!  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In related news, Ashley Rindsberg has a new book on "how the New York Times’s misreporting, distortions and fabrications radically alter history". On May 8, New York Post (not WP:RS) published an article/interview based on the book. Rindsberg sees the Sicknick story as an example of narrative construction at the Times, saying "When a symbol fits their narrative, they just cannot let it go." Terjen (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As an avid reader of the NYT, I disagree with this assertion that she makes. The NYT has reporters dedicated to "breaking news", and they actually do a damn good job of labelling what they have not independently verified/fact-checked when they do so. I'm venturing into NOTFORUM territory, but I don't think criticism of specific news sources is relevant in this article. The news as a whole failed in the US - even Fox News and conservatively-biased news sources ran with the narrative of him being killed by protestors - they just spun it as "it wasn't Trump supporters but Antifa or something" (which isn't the case). I think you could certainly add criticism of "breaking news" as a whole, but I don't think criticism of specific news outlets is due or supportable by reliable sources in this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ashley Rindsberg is worth keeping an eye on because he's discussing Sicknick as an example when interviewed about his new book documenting alleged NYT false narratives - and may continue to do so in other interviews. NYT was the origin of serious Sicknick related incorrect claims (although, as Reason notes, government misinformation also played a role) and they are being held accountable for it by Glenn Greenwald and others. Terjen (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - it is misleading to say that NYT was the origin of serious Sicknick related incorrect claims. There were multiple origins. As I show in this Wikipedia article, WSJ and AP independently reported the incorrect claims. They were not parroting the NYT. So did WUSA9, perhaps other outlets as well.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The incorrect fire-extinguisher claim was first published by the NYT in their January 8 article. Do you have reliable sources saying the other media independently reported it? Terjen (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - very puzzled by your comment. WSJ, AP are reliable sources. AP reported that Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during a struggle, two law enforcement officials said, although it was not clear if he was the officer shown in the video. The officials could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. That's independence. The sources may have been the same people, but the outlets were doing their own investigations. Furthermore, the WSJ and WUSA9 quoted different number of sources - if they were parroting NYT (according to two law enforcement officials) or AP, they would have said two, but WUSA9 says three sources and WSJ says one source (a law-enforcement official). Later on WSJ says That official said Capitol Police officers had initially shared that description with colleagues, so clearly WSJ has its own access to this source - independence. Let's flip it the other way - do you have any proof that AP/WSJ/WUSA9 got their information solely from NYT?  starship  .paint  (exalt) 02:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's original research, analyzing the reports to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources. What is needed is a reliable source saying that the other media independently reported it. Your analysis is reasonable but could be wrong, such as if they were following the lead from NYT and only independently verified the statements (as is good journalistic practice). Terjen (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - what do you mean by following the lead from NYT and only independently verified the statements? Isn't that communicating with the sources?  starship .paint  (exalt) 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint The current version of our article states "On January 8, The New York Times quoted two anonymous law enforcement officials as saying that Sicknick was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher during the storming. Similar reports quoting anonymous law enforcement official(s) were independently issued by the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal." It's the independently issued by that is the WP:OR, suggesting they came to the findings without knowledge of the earlier publication by NYT, which is unsupported by the sources. Rather, these other publications independently verified the claims. As NYT had the scoop, we could instead say something like that the other reports were "later issued by" the other media outlets. Terjen (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

- how about Soon after, the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal issued similar reports quoting anonymous law enforcement official(s). Hope this will clear up the wording issue.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Terjen (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: You're right in that we strictly don't know if NYT was the origin of the fire extinguisher claim, even if they were the first to publish it. Thank you for noting before it got a chance to slip into our article. Terjen (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We're currently linking to the second article from NYT on the fire extinguisher claim, titled "He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob". Their first article mentioning the claim was published earlier in the day, titled "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage." It said: "At some point in the chaos — with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress while lawmakers were forced to hide under their desks — he was struck with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials." Terjen (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Terjen (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - there's a simple reason I cited the second article - it says Sicknick was hit in the head. The first article does not, as seen from your quote, it just says Sicknick was hit.  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Now we've got citations both to the first NYT article saying he was struck with a fire extinguisher and the one saying he was hit in the head. That should cover it. Terjen (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the Capitol?
Why is this such a long and prominent section in this article? I'm sure everybody was excited to include as much detail as possible when it looked like Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, and when that didn't pan out, then the bear spray, but all this doesn't have much to do with Sicknick or his death. It's off topic and needs to be moved to the article on storming of the capitol. Or else just removed. P.S. I don't see any reason to include the opinion of CNN's expert that the medical examiner's decision was wrong, either. I know people hate to give this up, but you can't change the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
 * I've trimmed the section down a bit.Terjen (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why did you revert the changes?. Terjen (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's right there in my edit summary: "strikes me as important, well-sourced, and relevant contextual information." Neutralitytalk 02:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No surprise - aren't these mostly your own edits? Terjen (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The section hasn't aged well and is overdue to be deleted. It embarrassingly makes it look like we're still POV pushing the narrative that Sicknick was killed with bear spray, weeks after the report from the medical examiner. We already give rioters Khater and Tanios sufficient coverage in the later section about the investigation - they are insignificant and don't deserve their own prominent section. Terjen (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The section accurately and proportionally reflects the facts as reported. The section does not say anything about Sicknick's cause of death; rather, it accurately reports the chaos at the Capitol that day before Sicknick's death. I disagree that this material about the attack against Sicknick in his final hours of life is "insignificant." The medical examiner's report is already clearly covered in this article. Neutralitytalk 14:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the section is salvageable. I'll make a bold edit that moves it to the section on his death. Terjen (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to know more specifically what you propose to do. To be clear, I do not agree to any edit that would remove this content. Neutralitytalk 16:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As would I! Terjen, your original trim was a bold edit, Neutrality reverted, now let's discuss. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing is removed in this edit, only restructured. Terjen (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly looks fine to me. I find it to be an improvement to have an up-front summary of his death. One minor effect of the restructuring is to cast doubt on the chemical spray attack, as it's now presented first as something Sicknick reported to his family instead of something captured on video. Would you object to adding a line (maybe sourced to the NYT) stating clearly that he was the subject of such an attack? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A timeline of crimes/activities is almost never encyclopedic information. The most that should be included, if put in context, is when the bear spray attack happened. Aside from that, the information removed is just word vomit that isn't encyclopedic. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies - we don't just collect information because it's "well-sourced" - it must be encyclopedic information in the first place. Agree with the recent removal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to both you and 's recent edit: I wouldn't describe it as word vomit, but I agree that it can be trimmed down. I don't find WP:INDISCRIMINATE to apply literally to this case, but perhaps in spirit. As it was, the section really reads more like it belongs in a "Trial of Khater and Tanios" article. I think most of the second paragraph (The FBI said...) can be cut. From it, we should probably add to the following paragraph a line about who Khater/Tanios are, the allegations and possible video evidence that they had bear spray, and Khanos on recording saying "Give me that bear shit". I would be ok with cutting the last paragraph since it's unclear where Sicknick was after the chemical spray attack. Notability, you've said you want to keep most of this material. Are there other key facts/context that you feel need to be included? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: Sorry, I meant to ping Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree that that paragraph has useful info, but all the quotes and timeline aren't. I think the useful non-timeline (i.e. not "play by play" info) from the second and fourth paragraphs could be combined into one paragraph of 3-4 sentences. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an improvement. Terjen (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the update, keep in mind that neither Khater nor Tanios are charged with causing Sicknick's death. Terjen (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm hoping to have Neutrality's thoughts but I didn't successfully ping them earlier. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The two defendants are charged with assaulting Sicknick. I think the space presently in the article is proportionate to what is reflected in the RS. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Greenwald / Reason magazine commentator
I have removed some content cited to Glenn Greenwald and a commentator at Reason magazine. I do not think this is particularly encyclopedic material or that it meets the due weight test. Neutralitytalk 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * misrepresents the WP:RS citations: The first refers to Politifact reporting on a Glenn Greenwald commentary, the other to an article in Reason magazine. These viewpoints are significant and should be included. Terjen (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are they "significant"? Neither have subject-matter expertise in law enforcement, Capitol security, forensic science, etc. Many people have opinions; not all opinions need to be enshrined in a Wikipedia article. Neutralitytalk 00:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. Their views about the reporting do not require expertise in law enforcement, Capitol security, nor forensic science. Terjen (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with the removal of Greenwald's comments as not DUE. I think that the Reason commentary on why it is important is likely due weight to include - this incident has been criticized by more than just Reason for a failure of transparency in investigations/etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Berchanhimez I'd appreciate it if you restore the sentence attributed to Reason, which said "the confusion surrounding Sicknick's death was not only due to faulty reporting by the media, but also a failure of government transparency, noting law enforcement has a lengthy history in laundering misinformation when it serves its purposes." Terjen (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is good to include a short paraphrase of this sentence or similar—obviously people have taken notice of the discrepancy, both in the media and in Congress. But the paraphrase of the scrutiny should not include "slam", "blast", or any other cartoon word. Einsof (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone please reword the lede. You correctly write "neither" of two, not "none" of two. Plus other awkwardness. 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article does not seem to be protected, so you can edit it yourself. Einsof (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Wikipedia isn't really a friendly environment for editing. 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I worked on it some. JoeB2021 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about this being an unfriendly environment. It's all been reverted, including the grammatical errors. I'm done with it. Let it go on being an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Maybe someone will come along a put a tag on it about "needing improvement." JoeB2021 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored some of it. Can't really agree that adding context to the lede and fixing grammatical errors "[do] not appear to be improvements". Einsof (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede looks better, but info referenced there should summarize from the body of the article. The partial restoration seems to have left too much reverted. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability as of May 2021, and restructuring
Any highly-discussed murder case is inherently notable for an article on Wiki. When Officer Sicknick was talked about as a 'victim of pro-Trump violence', his 'murder' was notable, first, in the context of everything else happening at the Capitol, and second, in the official reaction to his "sacrifice", with a hero's honors and burial, which certainly elevated the notability of the events. But now we know that the death was natural. For three months, the facts of the 'murder' as reported by supposedly 'reliable sources' didn't exist, and the factual story now has to include the original 'rumor' and how the rumor snowball started rolling. All the initial notability is now of secondary importance, I think, and the primary notability of Sicknick's death has changed. I've prepared a full restructuring of the current text, leaving in the Bio and Memorial material, out of respect, but moving the Bio down, and putting the primary focus on the reportage and discussion of Sicknick's death. The investigation into events at the Capitol is incomplete and the facts can only be reported as allegations and interpretations. The reference sources are essentially the same (although I've re-organized most of the and cleaned up some typos). For such a politically 'hot' story, almost every source is a 'primary source', not an expert analysis, and each primary source has to be cited "according to what it says', not as if 'everything it says is a fact'. I could post my revision as a draft page for comments. Any takers? Horsense (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it. By quoting experts that complain about the medical examiner's verdict, this article is still trying to suggest Sicknick was murdered in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:18c0:6d81:cba5:b07b (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you mean when you bring up notability. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I would oppose deleting this article on notability grounds (usually we bring up notability when discussing article creation/deletion). As for editing the article, I wouldn't recommend proposing a wholesale revision at once. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd vastly prefer incremental changes that can be evaluated and discussed on their own merits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the fence about notability as a whole. I ignore the coverage from January 6 and about the week following - it's expected that events like this will be covered, and I consider that routine coverage for the purposes of discounting such coverage for determining notability. I won't argue that fully here as it's not up for deletion and I don't intend to propose such anytime soon. There's quite frankly not a lot of global coverage of this - which would be definition not routine, but there has been a lot of global coverage of the medical examiner determination of "natural causes". The notable topic here isn't the death itself, it's the circumstances surrounding the death - meaning that the article should, ideally, be crafted around that if it is to stay. I disagree with statements like "any X is inherently notable" - we don't ever discuss "inherent notability" here, even the WP:GNG is only a presumption of notability, and editorial discretion based on the amount of information that exists and how encyclopedic the topic is can still mean a topic gets given a section in another page or isn't covered at all. Given that I think everyone agrees that if anything, the notable event is the (circumstances of) the death, not him himself, WP:N(E) is the appropriate guideline. I think there's a strong argument that can be made that the death of this officer, regardless of how many "routine news" articles were written about it, may not be notable per that guideline. To quote specifically: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (emphasis mine). It's pretty clear that nothing enduringly significant can happen - as opposed to, say, the death of George Floyd that sparked protests and an entire movement - based on this person's death. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Something enduringly significant did happen based on Sicknick's death: Trump was impeached. The article of impeachment itself stated that Trump supporters ‘injured and killed law enforcement personnel’, with the pretrial memorandum claiming that "the insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." After the impeachment trial, President Biden issued a statement saying Sicknick lost "his life while protecting the Capitol from a violent, riotous mob." Terjen (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then that should feature prominently in the article. When you get all the hype out of the article, this is likely to be Sicknick's main cause for notability. 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I should step away from debating Wiki concepts in the abstract, but 'Sicknick's death' is a developing story based almost entirely on 'primary sources' with self-evident biases. If Wiki had a "year-book", this story would start as a 'news-event' and evolve in the future into an actual historical analysis with 'reliable secondary sources' for an encyclopedic entry. For the time being, the problem is how to use all the available sources to tell the truth without doing original research. Regarding this article: (1) I agree that the significant contents lie in the consequences and aftermath of Sicknick's "murder by the mob", which eventually proved to be false. The story was propagated by politicians and media (i.e. by supposedly 'reliable' primary sources). The mention in impeachment was one enduring result, so were the 'hero's honors', both based on the false presumption. I think that 'how the story grew, and then unraveled' is what 'secondary sources' are beginning to look at, and those sources are commenting on media, police and politicians. (2) I think that 'the riot' is a minor preamble to Sicknick's death. (3) the 'circumstances of the assault' are also minor, and belong lower down (with fewer details about Sicknick's two assailants), in the short section about the investigation. (4) the investigators seem also to be part of the story, in that they 'tried hard' to prove a murder did happen.   (5) Similarly, I would move Sicknick's biography to the bottom. His laudable life is not notable for Wiki; his unfortunate death is not the main story either, but it deserves high prominence as the pivotal event for everything else. (6) I suspect that some editors of this article might have an unspoken agenda, perhaps to play up Sicknick the hero, perhaps to stop people who think like me, perhaps to use Wiki to tell a 'politically correct' story, perhaps to protect primary sources or certain politicians from too much scrutiny... but it's only a suspicion :) ... (7) (I have been doing incremental editing. -nod to FFFeathers) The revisions of my most recent edits (15 June) seem aimed at emphasizing a biographical account, with Sicknick the hero. It was done by erasing awareness of the 'false' part of the story... If Officer Sicknick wasn't murdered, what was his "ultimate sacrifice"? Horsense (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If Officer Sicknick wasn't murdered, what was his "ultimate sacrifice" RSes and Capitol Police report Sicknick died in the line of duty after collapsing in the capitol during a shift where he was assaulted. To cite a famous (but very different) case:  in 1981, John Hinkley shot at Reagan, missed, and injured a man who ultimately died of homicide.  Despite this,  the victim was not 'murdered' because Hinkley was never convicted of that offense.  Feoffer (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope we can avoid a fruitless argument about the 'facts', and stick to discussing 'sources' and how to use what the sources say. (1) Your lead asserts: "...[Sicknick] collapsed while guarding Congress ". The word "while" suggests he was actively engaged. Do you have a source for this? ...from the Cap Police statement of Jan. 7: "He returned to his division office and collapsed." The source does not say how long it was after he returned to his office, so he may or may not have been 'on duty', but he certainly was not 'engaged with rioters' or 'guarding Congress' at the time of his collapse. (2) He died one day after he collapsed, so he didn't  'during a shift' on duty. (3) Sicknick's death is a pivotal part of the Capitol riot story because everyone assumed  that he collapsed because of his injuries, and that he subsequently died also because of his injuries, even though a Jan 8 story already mentioned the stroke! (ProPolitica). Your lead affirms the false impression, in agreement with the Cap Police statement, but the Medical Examiner's statements contradict that interpretation of events. (4) The major controversy arises from other sources asserting exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims, not only that Sicknick was 'murdered' (not just an act of homicide), but that he was "bludgeoned over the head with a fire extinguisher while battling rioters" (Sisk, Jan. 11, attributed to New York Times); and if he wasn't murdered that way, then by spray... (5) Your lead removes a quotation from the source (Sisk, Jan. 11) that put most of those claims together and linked them to Sicknick's "ultimate sacrifice" in the belief "[he] suffered fatal injuries while defending the U.S. Capitol against a pro-Trump mob", which ultimately justified his receiving honors. The source language is plainer than your subtle argument, and the fact is that he suffered no blows and no fatal injuries. (6) You also say: "Sicknick's death was cited in the second impeachment"; The actual impeachment source, again quoting the NYTimes, says: "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher."   I think the readers deserve to be told what the sources say, not what you, or I, would like them to mean. Horsense (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just for argument's sake: It would be interesting if every officer who 'died' in the line of duty got the royal treatment. The two officers who committed suicide after the riots got nothing, and their families want something. Meanwhile the 'hero' who killed Ashli Babbitt remains anonymous...and very few people seem to care... Horsense (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: Geneva, June 16, 2021. Joe Biden, speaking at his press conference after meeting with V. Putin had occasion to comment on the January 6 events, and spoke negatively about "...criminals [who] break through a cordon, go into the Capitol, kill a police officer, and be held unnaccountable..." So the on-going notability of the 'official' story is about the killing of a police officer - and Sicknick's name doesn't matter... Horsense (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Continued claims that Capitol mob killed Sicknick
I notice that these claims continue to be reported in the media, including most recently by President Biden during his European summit trip. Should this be covered in the article? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead overly minimized, 16 June
What's the new lead all about? I think it's in a minimalist news article style, almost bullet-point, that goes too far in trying to shorten the lead. It's not for an encyclopedia, I think, and not all correct either, even though it's sort of based on the existing article contents - which only shows what's wrong with the article (trying to be a biography, and to emphasize the crimes of the riot). There's nothing there to suggest notability, or controversy, or anything to get excited about. The new lead was deliberately edited to ignore the issue of a hyped-up, faulty story that Sicknick was 'killed by the mob' with a fire extinguisher. ''Sicknick was injured (uh, slightly or severely??? ) and collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous), and then died; he had a life, got assaulted by chemical spray, and was given high honors for some "ultimate sacrifice" (what sacrifice? ); his "death" was "cited" during impeachment (it's his "killing" that was cited...!). The doctor eventually figured out what he died of, and nobody has been punished for 'causing his death' (uh, for 'killing' him?).'' This all suggests that, since the original story is not true and never happened, there's no point in troubling readers with all that confusing stuff. Is that what the new lead is aiming at? Horsense (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * On any article, not just this one, its important to try to view the article from the eyes of someone completely unfamiliar with the topic.  Since you know a lot about this subject, the number one thing you want to see in the lede is a debunking Sicknick's misidentification  as the victim of the fire extinguisher.  But a reader new to the topic needs the basic Five Ws of journalism before they can parse the fire extinguisher bit.    We also have to balance the competing interests of debunking misinformation vs propagating it to people who never heard it in the first place.
 * Recently the lede had fallen out of chronological order.  Sicknick's childhood and career were placed last, the medical examiner report preceded  his lying in state in the text, while the vote to impeach fell in between his burial and and his being attack in the first place.  Since you already knew the order of events before you came to the article, you were able to follow it, but a reader new to the topic would not be able to deduce a chronology from so convoluted a lede. Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * collapsed 'on the job' (erroneous) if you have reliable sources that he was not on the job when he collapsed, we should incorporate that into the article. Feoffer (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - re 'collapse': Your lead version suggests that he collapsed during his confrontation with protesters, which is of course incorrect, according to the Cap Police quotation which is lower down in the article. - re '5ws': I agree completely on aiming at the 'uninformed' reader (who of course is neither ignorant nor unable to think, and who is also not necessarily a USA citizen who knows about the Capitol...). However: (1) journalistic style is not right for Wiki, which tries to be an encyclopedia. Thus, the Wiki lead/lede has more room than a news or background story to summarize and lay out a range of issues, including interpretations and controversies. The Wiki lead needs to be correct, clear and brief . (2) I think your chronological approach over-emphasizes news-events and thus leaves out the opinions and interpretations of events that are important parts of the story, and so should be a part of the lead. (3) Some people might well aim to 'debunk misinformation', and no doubt there are also people who want to propagate misinformation. I think Wiki aims to be a source of accurate, verifiable information which sometimes includes telling about lies (if some sources say there were lies) as well as mistakes (if that's what some sources think), etc. Wiki is not the place to decide what's true; and it's not a repository of pure, 'established truth'. Ideally, editors should try to convey as much important information as possible that is relevant to a topic, using what the sources regard as important. (4) Wiki editors debate many issues, and some articles, like this one, could touch a lot of nerves because some editors put the focus on Sicknick and the plain facts, others put it on 'the narrative', and the Sicknick narrative is, partially, about the reliability of so-called 'reliable sources' i.e. the 'cause of death by fire extinguisher' is only one (of several, not yet discussed!) examples of narrative issues. The 'narrative' is a more complex topic, but its not a topic separate from the simple facts. The problem is how to structure the article to make room for the whole story. - All this comes back to the question of 'notability'. It's not at all obvious, I think, without a primary emphasis on the narrative, that Sicknick deserves a Wiki article. Without the narrative about Sicknick's "killing", his story is a minor piece of the Capitol Riot story. (Not every officer who dies in the line of duty deserves a Wiki article.) For Wiki, his presumed 'killing' (if not 'murder') matters more than the plain facts of his actual death. - Based on my previous points, I'm planning to undo latest deletions by FFFeathers, pending further discussions. Horsense (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Horsense has made some good points and believe that the earlier version, prior to the June 16 edits, should be restored -- unless there is consensus for Feoffer's edits in this talk page thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous lede was not perfect, but it was better than the new version. I would rather restore and work from there. Einsof (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per points above, I've added "hours later" to help clarify timeline of collapse and restored mention of fire extinguisher confusion. Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You changed to "... hours later, collapsed while guarding Congress ..." which I think was not an improvement. Now Horsense has done some restoring and changing which I think fixes the issues. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)