Talk:Killing of Ashli Babbitt

Is this a BLP

I think an important question since this article contains biographical information is whether it should be written like, and conform to, more of a standard BLP format. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ashli Babbitt? No. See WP:BDP which no longer applies. Regarding still living individuals related to her death? Yes. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Any requirement for standardization of the respective content or formatting of encyclopedia entries will not stand the test of time. Selma0132 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, BLP applies with regards to the shooter. Slatersteven (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

Correct headline to include factual information Killing of Ashli Babbitt by Michael Byrd 64.121.240.144 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a normal and usual way to name articles. —Alalch E. 19:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Liu1126 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is factually correct to state that Ashli Babbitt was killed by Michael Byrd. It would be acceptable to do so in the title of the article. However, the contents of the article do not delve into Byrd's background in such a way that including his name seems to match (and therefore summarize) the article's content. Selma0132 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force Veteran, was not "shot in the shoulder" and, as I understand it, did not die later after transfer to a local hospital. The video (which is no longer available) taken from behind Officer Byrd shows him taking aim at the unarmed Ms. Babbitt as she stands, unmoving, and as his fellow officers duck. He shot her, fatally, in the neck.

This is why I rarely consult Wikipedia for "facts". 2603:800C:4A00:18A:95F5:42E8:B0BF:5889 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If the video referenced by 2603:800C surfaces, delete the article content and link that video preceded by one sentence (Michael Byrd killing Ashli Babbitt as she peacefully protests amongst rioters at the US Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021.)

Then change the article title as suggested by this thread and stop letting these meth-monkey dems re-write history because they're so hyped up on prescriptions that they forget they don't work for Hillary Clinton.

People look at Wikipedia. People trust people. Fix this shit! Selma0132 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2025

PLEASE CHANGE THIS:

{On January 6, 2021, Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot during the attack on the United States Capitol.[1][2][3] She was part of a crowd of supporters of then U.S. president Donald Trump who breached the United States Capitol building seeking to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.[4][5][6]

Babbitt's attempt to climb through a shattered window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby was thwarted when she was shot in the left shoulder by a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer.[7][8][9][10] After a USCP emergency response team administered aid, Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she died.[11][12] The USCP deemed the shooting was "lawful and within Department policy" and "potentially saved Members (of Congress) and staff from serious injury and possible death".[13][14]}

TO THIS:

{Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot during an infamous and controversial riot at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021.[1] She was part of a crowd that breached the Capitol building during the rioting, and was fatally shot while participating non-violently amongst other rioters who were attempting to break into an empty hallway outside the House of Representatives chamber.[2]

Babbitt stepped into the frame of a half-shattered door that surrounding rioters were trying to break through, which would have led them to the lobby of the House of Representatives chamber. It was then that Ashli was fatally shot in the left shoulder by an officer of the United States Capitol Police, tasked with defending the Congressmen inside the chamber.[3][4] The D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner determined Babbitt's cause of death to be a homicide. Babbitt's was the only non-"natural" death resulting from the riot. [5] The officer who killed Babbitt was not charged.[6]} Selma0132 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ultraodan (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A consensus is not required to factually summarize the event, for the associated article's introduction, by looking at the facts of the situation under review which are readily available. Mathematical proofs do not require consensus, and my language in the suggested alteration is objective and concise. Furthermore, my updated version of the introductory paragraph removed unproven information, along with sources for such information that did not actually corroborate it. SO, why would it not be the most responsible course to implement my updated introduction for this article? Could you provide any revisions, as you may see fit? I believe I did solid work, and you say it cannot be implemented because there is a lack of consensus. The internet favors controversial content and does not naturally support learning or critical thinking just by its use. Requiring consensus, as opposed to verifying factually-correct and neutral editing to approve, is a deeply and fundamentally flawed approach to moderating this content platform. Selma0132 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the NBC source say "non-violently" ? Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The NBC source for the "non-violently" descriptor is primarily a link to a video. In that video it is clear that Babbitt is not engaging in violence at the time she is shot, or for many seconds prior (as much time as we can see). This sort of straightforward discernment about non-text, primary sources is fundamentally necessary. I would ask how you can't see from the linked source that Babbitt is not behaving violently. This is obviously a crucial detail, as the article title is "Killing of Ashli Babbitt." The first thing I want to know in a case like this is, was she being violent or not? The video shows that she was not. So, a very long answer to your silly question. Selma0132 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's original research. You must find a secondary source saying, not based it off your interpretation of the video EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Watch the video, Babbitt is behaving non-violently when and before she is shot. Are you blind, or are you calling me blind? There is no "ultimate authority" on this stuff. Sounds like delusion. Selma0132 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:OR. We rely on WP:SECONDARY sources to tell us things so that we can give due weight and not rely on editors to make determinations. Even obvious things like this; we couldn't use the video footage to say JFK was shot in the head, for example, only secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is upheld by the competence of its contributors. If you refer me to multiple policies when I write concisely what happened in a video--EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREE--you will not contribute to maintaining the reliability of this site as a source of accurate information over time. You must have good, reliable people bringing in good, reliable people constantly. If you refer to a set of policies as the end-all, when most of your writers are impotent meth-junkies, your platform will eventually turn into a laughing stock despite its exceeding credibility thanks to comprehensive info on non-controversial sources. If you look at that video and see the same thing I saw, and believe that my language is neutral and accurate, you approve the request. Only constant effort from good, smart humans maintains this platform. The idea that your policies have worked thus far is disproven and completely destroyed from a cursory glance at any article about modern political discourse or history. Thanks for the thought, have a little more initiative and a little less trust. Selma0132 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Selma0132 It's not optional. Either collaborate to improve the encyclopedia or find a different hobby. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You're not really hearing me. The encyclopedia is failing. You can act like you're strongarming me, that's fine. Either take initiative to improve the encyclopedia, or understand that your work will become meaningless as it is overwritten by idiots--they will implement more policies to restrict common-sense contributing along the way, until their delusional enforcement of made up rules leads to the propagation of enough bullshit content (like this article, which we seem to agree about) so as to make the site die. Two words for you, teacher! Popular fallacy. Selma0132 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you are not listening, We go by what our policies say, and any edit that violates those will not wash. If that means we are seen as unreliable (by the way Wikipedia agrees is not an RS) we are OK with that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you are not listening. Trying to work with you makes it very clear why this platform is failing its primary mission. Thanks for trying. Selma0132 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Selma0132 Last chance. Either provide a reliable source, drop the stick, or be blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source you requested:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

You are welcome to block me. It is unfortunate that we disagree. I wish you well. Selma0132 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:or and please provide the quote from NBC that backs your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, original research is essential to a sustainable encyclopedia being maintained with accurate information. You are simultaneously saying "don't do research" and also "research differently because I am blind to a video"--a video which precedes potential AI generation. I regret trying to help you. Selma0132 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, research is often necessary, but "original research" is not what you think it is. Read WP:OR. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

2601:602:C482:23A0:7FEA:7ECE:B533:4DD0 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Insurrection needs to be changed to Riot

 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. Cannolis (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

False information

There is so much inaccurate about this article. I have reported it to several different people already. But you should be ashamed you didn’t only allow these lies about a woman murdered by police…. BUT YOU THEN PROTECT IT SO THE LIES CAN NOT BE CORRECTED? 47.222.33.137 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a protected edit request for specific changes with reliable sources. The page is protected from edits by new and unregistered users because of a history of disruptive editing. You can get access to edit it yourself once you have an account that is 4 days old with 10 edits. Ultraodan (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We go by what RS say not "several people". Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What is RS? I should not have to edit 4 other articles in order for you to approve my thoughtful, neutral, and correct edits to this one. That sort of rule indicates a systemic flaw, where your promoted editors (those who write often, well, and correctly--and can only truly be maintained by the owner of the site) are credited to address disputed content. I am helping you to address the issues about this article via my proposed changes, and then you say I need consensus--that is super backwards. If consensus is the fundament to accurate information, then why are people that write lots of articles promoted? They should write less and let the "consensus" of the people be implemented naturally. Oh wait, no they shouldn't. So bogus Selma0132 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to edit those other articles. Edit requests exist, although if you want to do it yourself without needing an edit request, find some non-controversial articles to edit. An RS is a reliable source as per WP:RS. In terms of the above request, a substantive change from one set of sources to another does require consensus. Ultraodan (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You're saying I have to edit non-controversial articles before I can propose a correct, verifiable edit to a controversial one? Selma0132 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you might've edited your reply above. The consensus rule is still bad. You did not address my points about it. Selma0132 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is how we make decisions when we disagree. Both the current version and your version have (seemingly) reliable sources. So we need a way to decide which is more reliable or a better explanation of events, and that process is consensus.

I honestly have no clue what you mean about people who write lots of articles being promoted, anyone is welcome to contribute their view to help reach a consensus. That's why this conversation is happening. Ultraodan (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Selma0132:, what is "false information" and "lies"? Please provide the exact words in the article that are wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean I suggested an update to the article's introduction in a thread above this one, which was referenced here in a lackluster manner. Check that out, you will find it to be irrefutable. Thanks. Selma0132 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That does not answer the question, what do WE say NOW that is false? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. @Selma0132:, please answer my question. If you can't point out exact words that are "false" or "lies", then we can't help you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not originate this thread. Look at my edit request above. @Valjean @Slatersteven Selma0132 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No, but you commented here, so what do you think is "false information" or "lies"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is so ridiculous a reply, that you must know it. Obviously you can scroll up and look at the thread I was referencing in my message which encompassed discussion from--and get this--two different threads. Forgive the sass but I cannot believe you are serious. Cite your rule saying that I'm wrong about this, and don't wonder who wrote it. Thank you. Selma0132 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

NO, as the OP in this thread may be talking about something else, your post has been answered. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. Selma0132 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump never stormed the capitol. That is incorrect information. Some if his supporters did. Please correct this incorrect information.

Your info is not accurate or correct. Trump never stormed or was at the capitol. Please correct this info. It’s not truthful. 69.116.73.26 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

PLease provide the quote where we say he personally did? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael Byrd was pardoned.

Michael Byrd was pardoned by Biden. Please update. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/01/20/741284/Biden-pardons-officer-murdered-unarmed-dissident152.117.98.55 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources saying this. Moreover, Byrd was cleared (though a pardon could protect him from retaliatory charges) EvergreenFir (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Update on Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Having been filed almost three years after Babbitt's death, the lawsuit missed the two-year statute of limitations imposed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. But the lead attorney for the plaintiff, Terry Roberts, believes that the two-year statute of limitations set by the Federal Tort Claims Act might not apply, either because the statute of limitations set by state law trumps the limitations set in the federal law, or because COVID restrictions that were in effect during the time of the death should give relief with regard to the statute of limitations.

The above old text is outdated and inaccurate. As explained on the Wikipedia page for the Federal Tort Claims Act. the 2-year statute of limitations does not start to run until six months after the administrative claim is denied. It is also incorrect that Terry Roberts is an attorney on the case.

The above text should be replaced with: "A federal judge scheduled a trial date for a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Jan. 6 protester Ashli Babbitt, who died after being shot by U.S. Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd. The watchdog group Judicial Watch, which is helping in the lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s husband, Aaron, revealed that Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled a trial date of July 20, 2026, for the $30 million wrongful death suit." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3163229/ashli-babbitt-wrongful-death-suit-green-light/

Thank you. Jpeterson1212 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The Killing of Ashli Babbitt

The shooting of Ashli Babbitt is more accurate, as killing implies she was murdered, and she caused her own demise. Thank you for your time 2600:1700:94C0:2500:9DB2:8615:4F31:C907 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No it does not, Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If it's a nonfatal shooting, it's a shooting. If it's a fatal shooting, it's a killing/homicide regardless of whether it's justified. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2025

72.42.244.111 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you guys just acknowledge murder and stop the politics? Ashli was a beautiful person and there was never, ever a life threatening situation to justify her execution by a political opponent who was posing as an officer.

It's really sad. Just give her the respect and her family the respect they earned before Michael Byrd executed her over politics.

The courts did not say it was murder, and wp:blp applies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2025 (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. PianoDan (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025, Trump's statements

Some news regarding the wrongful death lawsuit (probably nothing yet for the article, but noting it down here):

• Liddell, James (26 March 2025). "Trump promises to 'look into' Ashli Babbitt's shooting death on January 6". The Independent. Retrieved 29 March 2025. Last January, Babbitt's family filed a $30 million wrongful death suit against the U.S. government.
  Trump, who in January granted clemency to 1,500 supporters charged with crimes connected to the January 6, 2021 attack, told Newsmax's Greg Kelly on Tuesday that he will examine whether the Department of Justice should settle the case.

—Alalch E. 00:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)