Calling this "Killing of Ashli Babbitt" is inaccurate, in that it implies she was singled out as a target for killing when she was, in fact, a domestic terrorist who was lawfully shot by a police officer while she was violently rioting. Title should be changed to "Death of Ashli Babbitt." Moviethings (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- As far as I know, there is no evidence she was a terrorist. Even if there was, killing and death are really synonymous. Nor does killing imply unlawful, I can be killed by a falling tree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- She participated in the violent attempted insurrection, by definition a terroristic act, ergo she was a domestic terrorist. Moviethings (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Others might argue she participated in a riot, and no insurrection (by definition) is not terrorism, it is insurrection. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.", as far as I am aware no one has produced any evidence she did anything more than trespass. Bye the way insurrection is "insurrection a violent uprising against an authority or government.", again there is no evidence she was in fact violent. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- We do not make our own conclusions like that. We go by what reliable sources say. Regardless, the title is correct per WP:DEATHS. Just as with the Killing of Eric Garner or Death of Jeffery Epstein EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Moviethings's complaint is obviously problematic, but the current title ("Killing of") _is_ unCOMMON -- the desire to standardize nomenclature across articles is laudable, but standardization erases the nuances provided by RS in each article -- they seem to refer to the case as a "shooting" more than a "killing". It's not the end of the world, but we can do better. Feoffer (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Exactly. An essay doesn't determine "standardisation". WP:COMMONNAME, which is legit a core and consensus part of policy, clearly applies here, and strongly argues for death of Ashli Babbit. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- She was killed, she did not die of natural causes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
- She was killed; she didn't just "die". There was a human actor who caused her death, and did so through a deliberate act of violence against her. The fact that it's considered justifiable homicide ("killing someone", full stop, isn't a crime in and of itself, and most people don't necessarily consider all "killings" to be immoral; murder is, manslaughter is, negligent homicide is, etc., but not self-defense) doesn't make it not a killing. I also think "shooting of [blank]" article titles are silly as that wording obscures the lethal outcome of the shooting. You can be shot and not die. You can be killed without having been "murdered". WP Ludicer (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- why wasn't the fact that she was unarmed mentioned? If she was black it would have been in the first sentence!!! 98.144.202.141 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Would it, give an example of an article about a black person killed in pursuance of a crime where we say in the first sentence he was unarmed? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- She was shot in the neck not in her shoulder. Another misleading statement.
- The officer will never face charges because of immunity. 166.181.80.152 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
- this is such a sick mind. Gross 168.91.29.146 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
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.