Talk:Death of Brian Sicknick

Competing rewrites, June 21-23

Wow. The article has been reduced, once again, to a story about the 'crime of spraying', the 'confusion about the cause (manner?) of death', the 'memorials', and some 'bio'. A lot of, uh, authorized, trivial facts. Some day, Wiki-editors will have reliable secondary sources about the whole Sicknick episode, and it will be clear what has endured and how to contextualize and summarize the important facts and details. For the time being, this article is based mostly on primary sources of mixed reliability, and editors differ about what's important.
I prefer to overload this article, to some degree, with direct quotations and with explicit statements about 'Who said what and when', even if there is some redundancy. I also think there is important political context that deserves to be added, as long as the content is relevant and specific quotes are used: it isn't OR to 'find' relevant sources, and it isn't SYNTH if there are no non-trivial generalizations or conclusions.
Our colleague-editor Neutrality seems determined to minimize, if not ignore, what I think is essential content. So we have a dispute, about the article as a whole, not just about some specific components or wordings. The removal of political material has also erased the explanations about why Sicknick received special honors, the only thing (as mentioned above by Terjen) of enduring historical significance. The article is now entirely trivial.
>> So, maybe questions need to be decided: How much prominence is to be given to (A) the belief that Sicknick was killed? (B) its role in impeachment? (C) the "fire extinguisher" error? (D) the spray assault (still alleged, not yet tried in court)?
>> I think A,B,C are high; D is low. Horsense (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Your additions were, as described in my edit summaries, just bad. There was a lot of undue weight content and synthesis content. I understand that you may not like Pelosi or the American media, but that doesn't give you license to supersede encyclopedic policies in order to further that dislike. As far as your stated preference "to overload this article, to some degree, with direct quotations" and "some redundancy"—that is (1) bad writing and (2) especially bad for an encyclopedic.

At this point, the main importance of this article is how Sicknick's death has been used politically. See my comment above about how some politicians are still saying the Capitol mob killed Sicknick as part of an apparent propaganda narrative. The report on his cause of death has been widely reported, so this can no longer be called "confusion." My opinion is that this should be explored within the article. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, why is this included: "Other police officers were targeted by the pro-Trump mob with hurled fire extinguishers on January 6, in incidents unrelated to Sicknick.[38]" It has nothing to do with Sicknick or his death. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that ended the discussion, didn't it. No one wants to deal with the propaganda issue? Sorry, it's what's really standing out at this point. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

>> Here's a response: Obviously, a later-reported fact about fire extingushers is more politically useful than the early unfounded assertions (which some people seem to want to forget ever happened). Also: the only apparent (secondary) source for the idea of 'confusion' also mentions 'controversy': Neutrality's phrase "atmosphere of confusion" is a blatant whitewash of the quote he erased. Horsense (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• All my edits, including the liberal use of direct quotations, aim at adding information and sources that allow discussions. Neutrality's wholesale deletions of text and sources is far removed from marking problems for discussion, or making corrections. Horsense (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there others who agree (as above) that this article is about a news event highly connected to political events and interpretations? Neutrality (the unsigned bullet above) seems to me to interpret Wiki guidelines to exclude what he doesn't like. I don't know his motivations, but the effect of most of his deletions is clearly to erase or distort simple but major facts, some of which have political significance, and about which relevant opinions have been expressed.

Examples: (1) In the latest revision, <edit 20:27, 22 June> the commentator Greenwald was not contextualized but was deleted as "undue" simply for a single reference. Neutrality explicitly justifies the deletion based on his personal disdain for Greenwald's "ramblings". (See above ('Talk:Greenwald/Reason mag') for a similar argument, and I support Terjen's criticism above.); (2) <edit 20:21> the CNN source does say that the Dr. did not know details of the autopsy: "While Wecht has not examined the records directly, he said media accounts about the ruling puzzled him."; (3) <edit 20:22> the deleted text does not assert 'killing' or 'extinguisher' as reasons for impeachment; (4) <edit 20:25> the deleted text explains why Sicknick received special honors; (5) <edit 20:28> the deleted in-text attribution asserts WHEN the fact was reported, not just 'the fact'; (6) <edit 20:31> there is no SYNTH here, the 'point' being made is that these sourced things all happened on the same day.

The dispute here, I think, is about the policy guidelines on Wp:Balance and Wp:Proportion more than 'undue'. The 'crime' and 'memorial' content must be Balanced by the content that Neutrality has deleted; and then everybody's 'bad writing' can be improved. :-) (All this discussion might be pointless, of course, if it's not my writing that bothers him, but my 'bad' opinions...) Horsense (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's just not an aspect with much WP:SUSTAINED coverage, at least right now. A self-published piece by a relatively fringe figure like Greenwald thinking that something is evidence that the media is falling apart isn't noteworthy on its own; he's not an expert and there's no indication people took much note of his comments here. And without his opinions the rationale for focusing on most of the rest falls apart, too. At the start you said that you wanted to overload the article because (implicitly) you felt that opinions like Greenwald's will one day be important and have a lot of secondary coverage, but there's not much evidence of that right now, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL / WP:RECENTISM applies to stuff like that, especially since overall it feels like most coverage is treating the initial reports as more of a blip - most current new coverage of Sicknick's death gives it minimal weight, comparable to what the current version of our article does. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald is hardly a "fringe figure". New York Times labeled him a "high-profile journalist" when he left The Intercept (which he co-founded) last fall to publish independently via Substack.[1] He is an award-winning journalist and a recognized media critic. Terjen (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Still no response on these issues

First, what does this statement have to do with Sicknick's death? If it's supposed to explain why some people thought Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, then it needs to say that. Otherwise it's just extraneous information dropped into the article: "Other police officers were targeted by the pro-Trump mob with hurled fire extinguishers on January 6, in incidents unrelated to Sicknick.[52]" Next, the following statement is written as hearsay. The Wall Street Journal "reportedly" said? Does the reference include the statement or not? "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 also dislike this statement as it tries to place the blame for the misinformation on the Capitol Police, when it's fairly clearly politicians and main stream media who pushed the misinformation. It's unethical to place blame on the Capitol Police. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a political football any longer so everyone has lost interest? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the article suggests the Capitol Police are responsible for the published misinformation about Sicknick's death, and that this is a disservice to a fine organization ready to give their lives to protect the Capitol and the Congress. I've added a few lines of the CP's response to this accusation. Pkeets (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead and pepper spray

The lead implies that pepper spray caused Sicknick's strokes,

"Brian Sicknick, a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer, died on January 7, 2021, the day after he responded to the attack on the Capitol. He was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had two thromboembolic strokes the next day,[1][2] after which he was placed on life support,[3] and soon died.[4][5] The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural, whereby a death is "not hastened by an injury",[6] and additionally commented that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."[7][2][8]"

The medical examiner found no connection of the pepper spray with Sicknick's strokes. Pepper spray should be removed by changing the above to,

Brian Sicknick, a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer, died on January 7, 2021, after having two thromboembolic strokes the day after he responded to the attack on the Capitol.[1][2] He was placed on life support after the strokes[3] and soon died.[4][5] The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural, whereby a death is "not hastened by an injury",[6] and additionally commented that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."[7][2][8]

Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Natural cause

I suggest adding a definition of natural death as a quote in an existing cite in the second sentence of the lead, but not in the main text of the lead,

Hardy, Jennifer (April 19, 2021). "Officer's death after insurrection was ruled "natural causes"". KLKN. Retrieved April 24, 2021. Natural: Used when a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.

Bob K31416 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article incorrectly stating his death had nothing to do with injuries? Natural causes is not natural after being in a fight to exhaustion. 2601:647:CA00:1A6D:E857:7B9F:44F0:DAE9 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There is a plethora of right wing collaborations stating this gross misrepresentation of Mr. Sicknick's diagnosis. It's as though the "writers" got together at Starbucks & collaborated the gross misuse of this particular "finding" as they aren't med professionals & articles clearly don't read as such. This appears politically biased. There is no place for bias in medicine, only fact. Mr. Sicknick's injuries were a "indirect" per report, but maj of med community will argue direct result of the physical attack/beating he sustained. I'm an RN for 24yrs, trained in 5 specialties, 3 subspecialties (incl surgery).

The strokes Brian experienced were brought on from injury. He was young, healthy male peace officer w/DC Metro PD, w/no prev med hx of TIA prior to that incident. This is a gross disservice to his yrs of public service as well as his legacy and appears both intended & designed to do so. JetSetChristy (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"!-- categories for Brian Sicknick - see Brian Sicknick --"

The categories section says "!-- categories for Brian Sicknick - see Brian Sicknick --" but there is no such Wikipedia article. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)