Talk:Killing of Miriam Carey

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dlajoie. Peer reviewers: Dezhadial, Deneaum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Meets Notability

Dear fellow editors,

This incident was a one shot action but is very notable because of the effect on the local area and the closeness in time with the government shutdown and the discussion on mental health in the USA. So, Keep. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well. If you say so. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Notability is not obvious at all. Day after tomorrow, nobody will talk about this any more. I would also like to note that BLP policy also applies to the recently deceased and that the inclusion of all kinds of trivial (Cancun) or suggestive (head injury) information about the woman involved is unencyclopedic crap (WP is not a tabloid) and against policy. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Day after tomorrow, nobody will talk about this any more."

That would be Ocober 6, 2013.

Well, today is December 8, 2014, and I heard it discussed on a radio show that aired 2 days ago. ---Dagme (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • KEEP-My logic is as follows: Yes, if it had just been the exact same details no one would remeber this item in a year and thus it would not be notable enough for an encyclopedia - BUT, the video of the 6 officers surrounding the car will play on and on on You-tube forever and thus no the world public will have a much longer fascination with the event--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• No need for the big bold Keeps, we're not at AFD and not !voting here. And YouTube is chock full of videos that people may watch "forever" (however long that is in the ephemeral world of modern Internet). That doesn't mean we have to have articles on all those things. What counts is "encyclopedic notability", which I don't see here. One or two lines in some list article or in the article on the government shutdown is all this merits. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe this incident could be shortened into a few sentences. and merged into the lockdown article, as another example of a lockdown. Maybe its not notable on its own, but it would be fine as an example of a lockdown. 64.181.114.4 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolute recentism--93.137.170.112 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

New article title

Since the only people shooting were the police, I suggest that the article's title be changes to something more generic, such as US Capitol ramming incident (2013). Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. —MillingMachine (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What about US Capitol Lockdown KinkyLipids (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too 118.92.40.30 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Is calling this a shooting appropriate?

From the sources I've read it appears the instigator here didn't do any shooting, it was only various law officials who used guns. Can't we come up with a better article title to reflect that. 173.200.153.17 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone was shot so it is a shooting; it would not be appropriate to call it a "shootout" since that would imply two parties (Carey and police) exchanging fire. Intitial reports did include stuff like: "Authorities said the Secret Service chased her and she exchanged gunshots with police near the Capitol." Casual news listeners probably still believe she was armed when killed. I think we need an article about the "Rush" phenomenon where in the "rush to be first" stories go to air w/o vetting the facts first.

But, there only needs to be one shooter (or one side firing) to make a shooting incident. --Naaman Brown (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Article should be renamed Murder of Miriam Carey

"Shooting" is when somebody shoots. When somebody is murdered, then it's a murder. Ofaqim (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Murder is not just any killing, murder has a legal definition and specifically means an unlawful killing, which this was not. This would certainly fall under some category of justifiable homicide on the police's part. 129.133.200.112 (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it wold be accurate and not controversial to call it "Marian Carey Incident". The article has a bizarre and misleading sentence: "Both U.S. Capitol Police and Washington DC Metropolitan Police revealed that they believed that the shooting was an isolated incident, and not terrorism." I am going to change that sentence. ---Dagme (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Should be named for the White House locale

It is a bit hard to find this article because of the title "United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)". Most people think of it, understandably, as a White House-related episode and thus are searching vainly here. I had to go find it in the In the news archive where, tellingly, the blurb reads: "A woman is fatally shot by police after striking a barrier at a White House security checkpoint followed by a car chase." SteveStrummer (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There was not a shooting incident at the White House. What made it newsworthy was the shooting of an unarmed woman with a child in her car at or near the US Capitol by the Capitol Police.--Naaman Brown (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

How about Death of Miriam Carey?

Since there was no illegal shooting, how about "Shooting of Miriam Carey" or "Death of Miriam Carey" with redirects from other White House related titles to one of those two selections? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest the title of the article is the least of the issues, it is not worth making any changes until the issue with WP:NOT is resolved. LGA _talk^edits 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Race of Victim?

It is interesting that the color of the car is mentioned twice in the article, yet the race of the victim is not; both items should be equally important. If victim were white or hispanic (think George Zimmerman) would race have been mentioned?69.7.162.210 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The race is not material to the story. There's no hint that racism played any roll in these events. Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant, since she thought Obama was "communicating with her", so obviously she found a reason to do so on racial ground. Please add "African American" to the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.200.152 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several facts in the article that are not material to the story: She was a dental hygienist, her car was black etc… Selectively choosing which facts are material so as to feign colorblindness actually makes the article less descriptive; and possibly leaves the reader with an image of the story that is different than what actually occurred.69.7.162.210 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the point you make--that several other descriptives are used--race is an important factor in this case, considering the history of ordered violence against members of the black community in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.195.2 (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's name

Just noting here that I've removed the daughter's name per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This kid shouldn't have to grow up with her mother's actions hanging over her head. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What actions? be psychotic? try to flee the police? is that even a real crime? 80.174.254.202 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi anon. Welcome to Wikipedia. We respect privacy and err on the side of not writing things that could harm people if there is any doubt. In this case, we have no need to identify the 18 month old baby. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the name of the baby is still available in the history. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have those history entries blocked from access. If so, how is that done? --User101010 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no need. The information is publicly available on the internet. The question is whether or not it is pertinent to include in the article; it isn't our job to "protect" people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia:Notability (events)

This article fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy in that this is just a news story, the article fails to demonstrate what if any lasting effect it has, nor how the event had any significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group, there is a absence of any significant or in-depth coverage is in that all the sources are routine primary news reports and it is therefore more suited to WikiNews than the Encyclopaedia. So unless anyone can come up with a suitable merge target, I will nominate this for deletion. LGA _talk^edits 19:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• You have my support. As predicted (see top of this page), news coverage has basically ceased and the fervent flurry of frantic edits to this article seems to be over, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• It should be merged into some other article about attacks on the Whitehouse. Jehochman ^Talk 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a target in mind as I cant find one. LGA _talk^edits 08:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some similar incidents are found at List_of_incidents_of_political_violence_in_Washington,_D.C. and List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots. 71.58.222.181 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - At a minimum, the article should be kept or redirected to List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. where I have just listed the incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly redirected it to List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. where it is covered in enough detail already, if anyone object, they should revert and I will file an AfD. For the record as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL absent a exceptional sources that this was an attempt on the life of the president that is not a suitable target.LGA _talk^edits 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• What about White House intruders? Ryan Vesey 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was waiting to see if anything else developed around this event but nothing has. /delete in my opinion. —  dainomite   07:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I would recommend waiting for awhile to see if there is any follow up or change in procedures regarding this event. While I doubt there will be, there is no harm in keeping the article up for a month or two longer. By that time, we will definitely know whether or not this incident has any impact at all. Remember (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Remember. It seems like smothering to do this to an article that's only a week old. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This was an extremely high-profile, notable event. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How so when it fails the events notability tests ? LGA _talk^edits 07:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How can it fail the events notability tests when it is too recent to be evaluated for lasting effects and coverage? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is actually a very good summation of why it fails... See also WP:CRYSTAL. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Currency of events is not itself a criterion for deletion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I think that there is enough difference of opinion here that this should probably go to a full AfD so that more members of the WP community can weigh in. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: User:LGA boldly redirected it to List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. just over a day ago. —  dainomite   03:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I know LGA redirected it. My point is that Remember, DavidLeighEllis, SteveStrummer and I believe that it is now too soon to determine whether or not the article will have lasting effects. At an AfD, "no consensus" defaults to keep. Therefore, a discussion amongst the broader Wikipedia community may be in order. Additionally, WP:CRYSTAL applies to events that have not yet happened. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before, "too soon to determine whether or not the article will have lasting effects" translates to "not notable". And CRYSTAL most certainly does apply here: at this point, it's too soon to know whether this will have lasting effects (i.e., become notable), whether or not it will is anybody's guess. Arguing that it should be kept because we don't know yet what the future will bring is like writing an article on a newborn baby and arguing it should not be deleted because the child may one day become President of the United States. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By your line of argument, current events are always intrinsically non-notable, irrespective of how high-profile, because lasting effects can never be proven at the time. This is contrary to the events notability guideline, which clearly states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Using the same line of logic as Randykitty presented on October 14, should the 2013 Colorado floods article also be deleted or redirected? --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I reverted the redirect. There is enough coverage in this article that it shouldn't be reduced to three lines in a list article. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Miriam Carey removed from "List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C."

FYI, the only mention of Miriam Carey has been removed from List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. Does this mean that the article should be listed at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability tag on article

I am starting this section due to the notability tag that has been placed on the article, as it just went through an AfD. At first glance, there seem to be more than a dozen reliable sources in the article. I am interested in knowing which parts of the article are not properly sourced, or which sources are not reliable before removing the tag. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The AfD was closed as "no consensus", meaning that notability is not established without any doubt. It's quite standard to tag a "no consensus" article with a notability tag after the AFD was closed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Placing a notability tag on an article that is not deleted at an AfD is plain stupid. Tags are worthless if they're not going to lead to action. Renominate the article or start a merge discussion. Ryan Vesey 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, what vehemence. Note that the AFD was not closed "keep", but "no consensus". The conclusion is not "plain stupid", but self evident. No tag, of course, means that many people won't be aware of the need for improvement, so the article on this event (which soon will be all but forgotten anyway), even if it would be possible, will likely not improve much anymore. Anyway, this "plain stupid" article is not worth starting a fight over a needed tag, so by all means, have it your way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the tag as the AfD was "no consensus" as to it meeting NOT and NEVENT which means it needs sources that show the enduring notability and not just the primary news reports in the 24 hrs post the event. LGA _talk^edits 07:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, the original edit frenzy has died away. As far as I can see, there has not been any coverage of this incident after the first few days. Obviously, there's not going to be any "lasting impact". Perhaps time to revisit the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Police Report, Search Warrant

The Search and Seizure warrant tells a somewhat different account of the story: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/803160/miriam-carey-search-warrant-vehicle.pdf

A police report from an incident shortly before this may shed light on her mental state: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/809636-miriam-carey-police-reports.html

A press release from the Justice Department summarizing their investigation:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/news/2014/jul/14-161.html

I will probably work these into the article if nobody else does.Jonathan.robie (talk)

You probably shouldn't work those in. Doing so would likely run afoul of our policy on original research because we'd need a secondary source citing those documents rather than the documents themselves. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume the Justice Department press release is a secondary source, since it is derived from interviews with many witnesses and investigation of the primary sources? Jonathan.robie (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the press release is probably okay, given that it's a gov't entity. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

It should be made clearer if people believe the incident was an accident or a purposeful breach. Dezhadial (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think nobody really knows. It would probably violate WP:NPOV to say one way or the other. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments of Eric Prinz

I find it fascinating that Eric Prinz of Blackwater infamy, in his 2017 Oxford Union talk, felt this story met notability. He used it as an example of contrast between his mercenaries making mistakes and the government police making mistakes, claiming the Nissar Square incident was given more scrutiny than the U.S. Capitol shooting incident. (I hate the word 'incident') 71.11.254.3 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Shooting of Miriam Carey (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

---

2013 United States Capitol shooting → 2013 United States Capitol vehicular incident – The "shooting" part of the title only pertains to the officer-involved shooting that ended this incident. It doesn't imply any sort of criminal shooting targeting the United States Capitol or a specific individual(s) like 1954 United States Capitol shooting or 1998 United States Capitol shooting. The catalyst for this entire topic, and the true reason that this whole event was of any concern in the first place, was the motorist driving erratically. Plus, a number of the WP:RS sources provided for this very article mention the car chase over the shooting. As a result, I think it would be inaccurate to include "shooting" in the title as if that was the primary cause of concern here. However, if anyone is unsatisfied with the suggested new title, I am open to other suggestions. Love of Corey (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Shooting of Miriam Carey (as previously suggested): The suggested "vehicular incident" phrase seems like something written by a government bureaucrat. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I could get behind that as well. Love of Corey (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Shooting of Miriam Carey. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.