Talk:Death of Brian Sicknick

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)

Horsense, 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." [1] 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 presumed "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. <The details actually prove that there was no murder or "ultimate sacrifice". There is no Wiki-story in every riot and its ensuing injuries because they are, unfortunately, too common. The video of the events, BTW, shows a huge lot of people simply standing around, having no contact with police. Not much of a mob?> (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 die 'during a shift' on duty. (3) Sicknick's death is a pivotal part of the Capitol riot story because everyone assumed contrary to actual evidence and without a doubt 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)

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. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality 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. Neutrality^talk 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)

Neutrality, 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)

References

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 about all the major issues. (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)

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)

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)

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)

Should the lede summarize the body of the article?

I suggest yes, consistent with our guidelines. I assert that the current lede ([2]), 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:

The circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death were the subject of confusion for some months. Law enforcement officials initially reported that he had been struck by a fire extinguisher during the attack, leading managers for the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump to assert that Sicknick had been killed by rioters. Two men were eventually charged with assaulting Sicknick and two other officers with a chemical irritant during the storming, but neither was charged with causing Sicknick's death.

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. [3]). 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 Alalch Emis ([4]), my particular text is no longer necessary. My statements about the unacceptability of the previous four-sentence skeletonized lede still stand. Einsof (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)