User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple/draftingpage

Some productive discussion

@Cessaune: I wanted to get your advice before I went live with this discussion, but I was thinking as advising Anythingyouwant or Bob (or whoever) to start an RFC on the Jan. 6 deaths issue. Proposed RFC text here.

While I said I was fine with the in-text DOJ attribution as a compromise version, and I think I'd stand by that, I also think that we're not close to getting to a consensus on the point, and I don't think the discussion as to that particular point is going much of anywhere. As it stands, I think maybe 4 editors (tentatively counting myself) support the current version, while 3 think the current version presents an NPOV issue and, relatedly, support listing the causes of death or somehow otherwise indicating that only the Babbitt death was a direct consequence of violence.

The NYT article provides support for listing all the causes of death, so this isn't really a question of WP:V. Rather, I think the question involves tension between WP:NPOV and WP:MINORASPECT.

What are your thoughts? Do you think we're ready for an RFC? Seeing as I am comfortable enough with the current version (although ideally I do think the causes of death should be listed), I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to start it ... but I also would like to push the discussion along, and, to me, it currently seems to be going in circles—extended discussions about responsibility between, by my count, 4 editors who feel very strongly as to the issue (2 on each side). That said, I also don't want to jump the gun! I realize an RFC on this page is bound to get fairly intense.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Eh. I mean, maybe? I wouldn't be opposed to it. Here's how I would word it:

In reference to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, the Donald Trump article currently says, According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

1. Should the causes of death be listed?
2. Should the article specifically refer to the Capitol Police officer? (or some better wording of the same question, but I'm tired right now and can't think of a better way to phrase it)

I always start with the underlying question. By asking a direct question, one that will show up on RfC/a, more people will join the RfC in my experience.

The NPOV question isn't actionable. If there is a consensus that the current version does not adhere to NPOV, but a consensus that the causes of deaths shouldn't be listed, then... what happens?

The other sections should be placed on the article talk page, including your proposed alternate wording. Discussion will yield consensus. Cessaune [talk] 01:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That's true that the NPOV question isn't super actionable—that was actually by design, but if you think it's not advisable I'll drop it (assuming I go forward with this at all). In certain circumstances, I think a non-actionable item is actually a good thing in RFCs, because they serve to narrow down the spectrum of options. For example, in one recent RFC I participated in, there was a consensus that the current title of the page was not appropriate, but there was no consensus as to what the title should be. But having that allowed us to have another discussion on what the title should be—editors who supported the title in the first discussion were able to adjust in light of the fact that the first option was taken off the table.

Here, I've seen a few users suggest many different ways to address what they see as the NPOV issue: 1. listing the causes of death; 2. removing reference to the capitol police officer, 3. only mentioning Babbitt's death, 4. distinguishing "four protestor deaths and one police-officer death"; 5. distinguishing "deaths caused by violence" from "other deaths"; etc. Now, suppose editors who are in camp 2, 3, 4, and 5, oppose item 1 ... even though I think item 1 has the most support among the group that thinks there's an NPOV issue. They're in a weird spot where they oppose the change suggested, but they support some change. So, what can they do? If they present more options, the most likely result is a "no consensus" finding that's truly not actionable. But if we allow them to say "I think it's a NPOV issue but I don't agree with this change," then we might end up with a consensus that the passage needs to be changed, but no consensus on how. I think that's a better place to be--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Camp 1 and camp 2 are the most relevant; only two editors have argued for anything else. I doubt enough editors who think there is an NPOV issue will be simultaneously opposed to option 1 or 2 to make a difference.

An RfC that leads to a post-RfC discussion is way too time consuming. We'll be arguing into August. I really don't like that idea. Cessaune [talk] 01:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I would hope that if one option was ruled out we could maybe come to a consensus on an alternative without another RFC, but you might be right. The Trump page is difficult precisely because conversations seem to end in no consensus and head nowhere. See, the result of the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, which we could never agree on and is therefore not in the article, or the dispute about whether there was an npov issue with saying Trump and his entities were "involved in" 4000 suits. ... also spun around a lot before ultimately going nowhere. I've actually never seen a contentious discussion truly resolve itself on that page—what usually happens is an editor side steps the discussion, makes an edit to the passage in question without discussing it first, and no one bothers to revert ... though the discussion might keep going.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible to end a discussion in consensus, though it's becoming increasingly rare. An RfC I spearheaded ended in consensus, albeit a rough one (and it wasn't even worded that well). The real issue is all-or-nothing attitude and the creation of spin-off discussions. If we focused on one issue, then the next, then the next, maybe we would get somewhere. If we were more compromise-minded, then maybe we would get there.

The tactic that works the best is to bring in outside influence to solve the problem. RfCs that ask simple questions are perfect for that. Cessaune [talk] 02:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Jerome, I think it's time. Let's get the RfC rolling, and get this over with. Use whatever wording you feel is best, but I'm tired of discussing the same paragraph over and over. Cessaune [talk] 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I was crafting the RFC as a template for Anythingyouwant to use (because I get the sense that Anythingyouwant is maybe not particularly familiar with dispute-resolution processes), but I'm frustrated enough with that user that I no longer think it'd be helpful. I genuinely think the current in-text attribution version is okay; I'd lean towards supporting any effort to included causes of death, but I really don't think it should be me that starts the RFC. If you'd like to, obviously feel free—and I will not be offended if you want to completely disregard the template example I set up—I get the sense that you're much more familiar with dispute resolution and could probably do a better job than I could!--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it. Maybe in a few hours. I like your template; I'll draw inspiration. Cessaune [talk] 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

How about this?

In reference to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, the Donald Trump article currently says, According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

1. Should the causes of death be listed?
2. Should the article explicitly mention the Capitol Police officer?

Or something similar. Then this would go below?

Per the New York Times article currently cited in the article (NYT link), on January 6, 2021, four protestors involved in the attack on the Capitol died, and, "[i]n the days and weeks after the riot", five police officers who were on the scene at the time of the attack also died. One member of the mob was shot and killed while entering the Capitol; two of the deaths—including that of police officer Brian Sicknick—were caused by strokes; one by a heart attack, one by an overdose, and four by suicide. Per that same article, a bipartisan Senate report attributed 7 deaths to the attack, although that report was issued before two of the police officers died by died. Per the ABC News article also currently cited (ABC link), the DOJ attributed 5 deaths to the attack (appearing to omit suicides). A few editors have suggested that this article's current framing creates an NPOV issue: Specifically, they argue that, by juxtaposing the deaths with the "many injuries" and by failing to state any causes of death, the article implies that the deaths in question were by violent means. These editors have suggested, amongst other options: (1) listing the causes of death, or (2) only mentioning the death of Ashli Babbitt, who died after she was shot while crawling through a broken window to enter the Capitol. Editors opposed to these options have emphasized (1) that multiple deaths were attributed to the event, in particular by the bipartisan Senate report, and (2) that this article, which is on Donald Trump must adhere to summary style, and that the additional details regarding causes of death do not belong here.

Cessaune [talk] 20:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I think you're right that we're not likely to get a lot of other options mentioned—I really only saw two editors suggesting a ton of variations.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting up the background into separate paragraphs—I think "A few editors" could start a new paragraph, since it shifts from the background on the sources to the summary of the arguments thus far. But your call. --Jerome Frank Disciple 20:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune ... looking at the current discussion ... perhaps a third option should be only listing Ashlii Babbitt's death? That was discussed early on, I think the first proposal I drafted did just that, but then a few editors objected and it didn't get much more discussion after that. But both of the current people in the discussion seem to be on "less detail" lines ... and I actually think there's potentially some merit to only specially mentioning the death caused by violence (while still mentioning the injuries to police officers). Maybe: 1. Should the deaths be mentioned at all (and if so, which)?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything's the only person whos line of thinking currently falls along the 'only Ashlii Babbitt' lines. And it's not like Anything proposed that as a solution. And that opinion isn't supported by any RSs I've seen.

As to the potential third question, I think we've got to wait until outside editors propose it. Anything's opinion isn't exactly representative of the general sentiment, and, even if it was, it's too early. Cessaune [talk] 22:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! That's true that the other two editors didn't propose it; I've just noticed they've all been mentioning length, hence the thought.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I notified people at the Jan 6 article about the RfC. Cessaune [talk] 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Awesome; and great work! Sorry I've been a bit absent from that discussion ... I was reverted on edits to a judiciary section that I think 3/4 editors had agreed to ... and then I got obsessed with trying (and badly failing) to write my first script. It's been a weird day!--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)