Talk:Death of Brian Sicknick/Archive 2

Collapsed on duty in lede
RSes universally report Sicknick collapsed while on duty, but this fact had been deleted from the lede. I've restored it and welcome improvements. Feoffer (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually the inserted words were "collapsed at the Capitol and". Am I missing something that says he did not collapse in the Capitol Police Office on D Street? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources: WSJ:   "Around 10 p.m. that night, Mr. Sicknick collapsed at the Capitol" NPR"At approximately 10 p.m., Sicknick collapsed at the Capitol", NBC "He collapsed at the Capitol that night about 10 p.m"  Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support (above). (a) Timeline complexities, both what.happened.when and when.wasit.known, should probably be avoided in the lead, except for the critical events that establish the importance of the subject. (b) Some details lead to more details... I don't think 'when/where he collapsed' is critical for the lead, but the latest version says 'he collapsed at the Capitol AND died the next day...' Massively imprecise about time and location! I wouldn't presume that this is deliberately meant to mislead the Wiki reader, which it must do, but even if '10 p.m.' is specified, it remains misleading without further explanation that '10 p.m.' was not only 'after the riot' (known locally at the time) but also about 8 hours after being injured/sprayed (public knowledge after the Med Ex report). (c) The news reporters out of D.C. might know where the Police Office is located in relation to the Capitol, but the world does not. To my knowledge, he collapsed at the police office, which presumably was not the site of the riot. If the RSes said he collapsed at the Capitol, that is an imprecise statement of location.  Good enough for a news headline and story, maybe... Certainly misleading in Wiki. (d) Timeline details should first get into the article before the lead, but some details are not readily available (because nobody asked?): How did he get back to the Police office? Did he go back during the riot or only afterwards (i.e. how long at the office before collapsing)? What was he doing? Where were the other officers, injured or not, meantime? When did he text message his brother, and where was he at the time - was he texting while on duty?  Horsense (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the lede summarize the body of the article?
I suggest yes, consistent with our guidelines. I assert that the current lede, which is all of four sentences, does not cut it. I seek consensus to alter the second paragraph of the lede to read as follows:

I would also be happy to see additions to this text as needed to summarize the article.

The rationale for repeatedly skeletonizing the lede seems to be undue weight (e.g. ). While I suppose it is true in a vacuous sense that one can achieve due weight by not having any content, that doesn't really seem consistent with the goal of a lede section. I also note that when this article went through GAR, it was still titled "Brian Sicknick", and hence the lede did not dwell too much on the specifics of his death. But since his death is now the entire subject of the article, the lede should reflect that in order to meet GA criteria. Einsof (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the recent additions by, my particular text is no longer necessary. My statements about the unacceptability of the previous four-sentence skeletonized lede still stand, and I will again open a discussion on the above text or similar if the lede is skeletonized again. Einsof (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear now that there are plenty of relevant and due elements that can make for a non-skeletonized lead, such that questionably /at best/ due elements (the impeachment debate angle for example) aren't perceived as needed to beef it up. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article is about Sicknick's death, then it needs to prominently discuss the political uses of his death. This includes inclusion in the impeachment article and repeated claims that he was killed by the Capitol mob, even after the coroner's report. Discussion of this in the body of the article should be summarized in the lede. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing misinformation from politicians
"In April, after the medical examiner's autopsy findings were reported, the official cited by the Wall Street Journal reportedly said that the erroneous information had been privately spread by Capitol Police officers.[29]" I suggest this needs to be followed with a statement about how politicians have continued to spread erroneous information about Sicknick's death. It seems unethical to accuse the Capitol Police of being responsible, when as reported, it's more politicians insisting on the misinformation. 2601:844:4000:F910:853A:329F:7B12:AA83 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know there's a dearth of mainstream media articles about this, but plenty of small publications out there have come right out and called the misinformation campaign propaganda. Without mainstream media publications to use as sources, it's difficult to address this in the article; however, ongoing incidents saying Sicknick was killed by the mob (such a the Biden comments) are real and are easy to locate. The article's editors should be aware of this and hedge the text accordingly. Blaming the Capitol Police for the erroneous narrative, as the article does now, is unethical. This needs to be rewritten with at least a tacit understanding about the politization of Sicknick's death. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes since GA pass
I'm responding to your dissatisfaction with the current state of the article, that you expressed in your summary (diff). I understand that you reverted that edit, and so perhaps you changed your mind, but there are probably constructive things to be said -- could you say more about what the problems are, in your view? Regards. P.S. there is a formal path to fix/delist GAs, so there's no need for drastic boldness as far as I can tell. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was changed a lot. Since its listing, people have turned the article from one about Brian Sicknick's life to just his death, which is a big difference as a GA. I think it turns it into less of a biography and more into a "Death of" type article. Cutlass Ciera  20:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article most certainly is, and always (or if not quite always, for a period prior to nomination) was, intended to be a "Death of"-type article, but at the time of it's nomination it was a paradigmatically flawed article of that sort as the content was structured more like a typical biography article (which is more common, and is something people would easily, but mistakenly, default to). The changes that made the article more of an orthodox "Death of"-type article, whereby it is strongly indicated that the subject is a specific occurrence and not a biography as such, only made the article significantly better. Update: these are some other correctly-framed "Death-of"-type articles: Death of Jeffrey Epstein (GA), Death of Diana, Princess of Wales — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but the change still makes a big difference, as new content and rewording was made after the GA designation. That is a massive change for a GA as the article has substantially changed. If it was so flawed as an article, how did it become a GA? That doesn't make much sense to me. You could point out that there was a hoax GA, but that was 2012. Things have changed since then.  Cutlass Ciera  12:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)