Talk:Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter)

“Protester?”

I believe this word is inaccurate. Barnett is not notable because of any “protest.” He is notable for his criminal behavior. To distinguish this article from other Richard Barnetts another idea would be “January 6 Attacker.” Johnadams11 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I tried to be as uncontroversial as possible when I wrote "protester". CT55555(talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another idea is to just title the page “Richard ‘Bigo’ Barnett.” Johnadams11 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Both Richard "Bigo" Barnett and Bigo Barnett link to the article. But I don't think unofficial and (I think) recent nicknames. Are the normal way to do this, I searched around and he is mostly known by his official name. CT55555(talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My bigger concern is the labeling of Barnett as a "Protester." Why is anyone advocating for this? Johnadams11 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

At least one reliable source calls him a protester.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/07/protester-pictured-feet-nancy-pelosis-desk-trump-supporter-arkansas/

In formulating this answer, I see that "rioter" is more commonly used in reliable sources.

I'm open minded about this, but I also think he did protest, and therefore is a protester. CT55555(talk) 03:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish you had given it more time for people to reach consensus. If you had proposed "Criminal" I would at least have suggested you use "criminal" instead, as the capitalisation of it seems wrong. CT55555(talk) 04:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11 and @CT55555: this is an undiscussed controversial move and needs to be debated using the requested moves process. Labeling a person a criminal is contentious value judgement and leads to a non-neutral title and implies that Wikipedia is editorializing, so this particular disambiguation label must be supported by reliable sources. Just because someone has been found guilty of a crime, does not necessarily make them a criminal. In this case, the subject is still awaiting sentencing, so applying the label is also premature because the judicial process is not yet complete. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

While I see some merit in the move, I mostly agree. I am happy for a third person to comment. If you wish to revert the move, I support. CT55555(talk) 06:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: I have reverted your page move back to Richard Barnett (protester) for the reasons I posted above. If you wish to propose a change in title, please follow the requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves discussion process. For what its worth, I oppose using the disambiguator label (criminal) unless you can prove that multiple reliable sources ascribe this non-neutral, opinionated and moral value-judgement label to him. I accept there is at least one source that describe the subject as a "protester", so accept that disambiguator as being precise. If you wish to propose a different disambiguator like January 6 attacker, because that aligns with the wider article, please indicate supporting sources, as this is still a value judgement, and needs to be supported by reliable sources that describe him as such. Other possibilities might be one reflecting a current or former occupation, as might be cited on court papers, or a year of birth. However much you or I might be offended by this person's criminal behaviour, please remember that WP:BLP applies even to article titles, so even a disambiguating label needs to be supported by sources, otherwise Wikipedia editors could be seen as passing their own value-judgments on living people. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did and do believe that the best and most obvious answer is to use “Bigo” for disambiguation. It is commonly used in reporting on this individual. Here’s NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/us/politics/richard-barnett-pelosi-jan-6-convicted.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Johnadams11 (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: I am sorry, I cannot access the New York Times article you cite because it requires a subscription to access. Wikipedia recommends open access sources be used in preference to sources behind pay-walls. This is why multiple sources are needed. However, the name "Bigo" is not mentioned in the first few words of the lede that the paywall does let me see. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics/richard-barnett-pelosi-office-january-6/index.html

Johnadams11 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. The first thing CNN does after mentioning his first and last name in the caption of the accompanying photograph is to call him "a supporter of Donald Trump". I can recognize "(Donald Trump supporter)" as a potential alternative as a disambiguator. The same caption says he was in the act of "protest" when the photograph was taken, supporting both @CT55555 and my contention that "(protestor)" is an acceptable and concise disambiguating term. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The name “Bigo” is a meaningful component of his identity. Note, he used this name in the message her left for Nancy Pelosi— a point called out (I believe by you) in the article. Johnadams11 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: The CNN report takes a photo caption and two paragraphs of their article to get around to mentioning he is "... also known as "Bigo," ..." It then proceeds to call him "Barnett" in the rest of their article. If "Bigo" is a meaningful component of his identity then CNN's report does not indicate this. All the article says is that he has a nickname. I think you are now clutching at straw to come up with a different article title. One of the criteria for an article title is that it be Recognizable, and because he is more commonly referred to as either Richard Barnett, or simply by his surname of Barnett, that is why this article bears his common name as reported by most news media. Unfortunately, he is not commonly known by Bigo in the news media, not even in the cited CNN report. Additionally, the descriptor used in the parenthesized disambiguating term should a noun of a generic class or group, perhaps specific to the context in which the subject appears. Describing him as a "(protester)" seems to adequately fit the bill and is more neutral that something like "(Capitol attacker)" which is more specific, but longer. If you feel strongly on this, please propose a page move and try to convince all the other Wikipedia editors. BTW: The only change I have made this article is to revert the undiscussed, and contoversial, move that you had made. This argument as totally convinced me I have done the right thing, thank you. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that you want to include his nickname, but I find "protester" better and I don't think you've given any reason why "protester" is unsuitable. CT55555(talk) 03:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe.

Happy to try to discuss directly (at least once) before seeking dispute resolution. First — let’s agree that we each prefer to simply call him “Richard Barnett.” It’s just that because his name is shared with many others, we have the job of disambiguating. I do not support the word “protestor” as the act of protesting is legal. Mr. Barnett is notable and infamous for his crimes.

The test you seem to be employing for whether "Bigo" is a “meaningful component” of his name seems to involve measuring when and how a given news article uses this name. By this measure, “Robinette” is not a meaningful component of the president’s name. In any case, both CNN and NYT do not merely "use" the name "Bigo" to describe him -- they assert that this IS his name.

CNN affirmatively asserts that he is “also known as Bigo”

The NY Times, arguably the most famous and respected newspaper in the world, asserts “Mr. Barnett.. is known as Bigo.”

Here’s a WaPo piece where "Bigo" is in the subhead.

A DailyBeat piece.

A HuffPo piece

Politico

I could go on. The Google search results on “Richard Bigo Barnett” (exact match using quotes) yields 58,000 hits.

(The Google search results on “Richard Barnett Protestor,” yields exactly 2 — those on this very page.)

Arguments with respect to the use of the word “criminal” fail on several levels. First — the suggestion that Barnett may not be a criminal because he’s not yet been sentenced is flatly false. The conviction itself by definition makes him a criminal independent of whatever sentence he receives.

You also link to an article regarding the phenomenological implications of labeling. The concern about labeling and thereby stigmatizing Mr. Barnett is laudable, but I don’t think pertinent as a component of encyclopedic references. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were mass murders and are called just that on Wikipedia.

The suggestion that the “criminal” label is a “value judgment” is false. Barnett is “criminal” by definition, convicted in federal court on 8 counts including 4 felonies. Further — the only reason anyone is paying any attention to him is the direct result of this very criminality.

Specific to the word “protester:” The trouble with this word is that in the effort to be “more neutral” the word misrepresents why he is notable. If J6 “protesters” were notable, we’d need a few hundred thousand more articles. The reason Richard Bigo Barnett is notable relates directly and specifically to his criminal acts. Further — and this is a difference even versus Jake Angeli, the evidence presented at trial showed no sign of political protest from Barnett. He was in Washington not to protest, but to disrupt a congressional proceeding. Therefore, there is nothing about the word “criminal” that is not neutral. The use of the word “protester” to define Barnett suggests an agenda to obscure the nature of Mr. Barnett’s infamy -- and as it result it is not remotely neutral.

Please let me know if you'd like to continue the discussion or if we should commence dispute resolution. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I continue to support either "Richard Barnett (criminal)" or "Richard Bigo Barnett." Johnadams11 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: The requested moves process is clear, if you want to change the title of the article then you need to follow the request a single page move procedure. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: I don't believe we have reached the point of needing dispute resolution. My opinion is different to yours, we merely disagree. And I agree we disagree. This is not in dispute. You have the option to request the title be changed, and I wonder why you haven't exercised it yet, and persist with trying to change my mind. You won't. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Cameron Dewe. Request a move if you continue to disagree. I also find your long comments unpersuasive. CT55555(talk) 04:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

LOL "There is no way I'll change my mind" is always the sign of great intellect. Johnadams11 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2023

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 Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter). There is a consensus to move. There is also a consensus on "Capitol rioter" as dab instead of using his nickname, "Bigo" in the title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Richard Barnett (protester) → ? – The article adds the word "protestor" to disambiguate from other Richard Barnetts. The word "protester" suggests a benign legal activity which is utterly unrelated to the reasons why Barnett is notable. There is also no evidence that Barnett participated in any classical protest activities, such as carrying a sign, or chanting slogans. Given that his notability is entirely related to his criminality, disambiguation terms like "January 6th Rioter," "January 6th Attacker," "criminal," or use of his commonly used nickname "Richard 'Bigo' Barnett" all seem more accurate. Johnadams11 (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change. Status quo works fine. He is a protester and I've yet to see a better name suggested.

CT55555(talk) 06:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

per media (Capitol rioter) is better. Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change. - Both CNN[1] and Politico[2] describe Barnett as undertaking a "protest" when he was photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office chair with a foot on her desk in the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. This photograph is considered by various news media to be an iconic image of that day, and he appears to be most notable for this act of "protest". Acts of protest can take many forms, including parading around, sitting down, being photographed while occupying a building, writing notes to people, removing documents as souvenirs, and then waving them around to show assembled crowds. Not all protest acts are legal and among the charges the Justice department made against Barnett was "parading or demonstrating in a capitol building". Parenthetical disambiguators should describe a generic class or group, while article titles should be neutral, descriptive and, ideally, non-judgemental. Most of the reliable sources commonly call this person Richard Barnett, and those that do use "Bigo" make it clear that this is a nickname and also use his first and last name without inserting the nickname between them. While a number of sources also call Barnett a "thief", and charges were laid for this crime, they do not call him a "criminal". However, Barnett denies this, saying he paid for the envelope he took from Pelosi's office. Sources do not appear to use any of the other proposed terms, although "Jan 6 intruder" is used by the Politico source, along with the collective descripton "rioter", to describe the group of people who entered the Capitol on that day. I think the existing term "protester" is the best description of what Barnett was doing at the time he was photographed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Change. The simplest and most obvious solution is to avoid the disambiguation issue by using Barnett's near universally employed monicker "Bigo." The New York Times confidently uses "Bigo" in the first reference here. CNN reports he is "known as 'Bigo'" The Washington Post uses "Bigo" in a sub-head. "Bigo" is the name he himself goes by on Twitter, the name he used in the infamous note he left for Nancy Pelosi, and the name used as the first words of this very article (which is less than one week old). Change title to "Richard 'Bigo' Barnett." Johnadams11 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you have a solution in mine, why did you not include it in the move request? If you had some so, then we could have critiqued that in our !votes. I specifically oppose that due it not being the common way that reliable sources present his name, with regards to WP:COMMONNAME CT55555(talk) 18:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My primary issue was the inaccuracy of the present treatment. As you can see, contentious debate preceded the move request. It was important to me to be reasonable, and so expressed agreement with several solutions — each an improvement on “Protester.” Johnadams11 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect to my suggestion that simply adding “Bigo” to the title would solve the disambiguation problem, I'd really like to better comprehend your objection. I posted usage of this name from NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, and others. In several of these cases the cited work not only uses the name "Bigo," but specifically asserts that he is "known" by that name. Please help me understand the quantity and nature of evidence that you believe WP requires here. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I object to "criminal" and "Bigo" due to my understanding of WP:COMMONNAME which directs us towards neutral names and the most commonly used names. I find protester more neutral than criminal (i.e. he is known for protesting, before the criminality was established) and he is more known by his name, than his nickname. I see the arguments for both, but none seem to be better than the status quo. Please let's pause, avoid dominating the discussion and give space for others to contribute. CT55555(talk) 22:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555 All reasonable. Thank you. And plainly, if we didn't have the disambiguation issue, we would have called him "Richard Barnett" and moved on. Now the issue is not how to comply with WP:COMMONNAME, but how to comply while also disambiguating. "Protestor" is not accurate as when this term is connected with his name in this way, it suggests that his noteworthiness is connected with "protesting." It is not. His noteworthiness comes from having committed multiple crimes during the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional comment: The article started with the subject being referred to as Richard Barnett, which is his official name, I believe, before also mentioning his nickname, saying that Richard "Bigo" Barnett was often used in sources, too. However, the Department of Justice only used his (shorter) official name when charging him. His official name was removed from the article in a subsequent edit, contrary to the guideline on official names. Whether this article is moved or not, there still needs to be a redirect from his official name, and that probably needs to be disambiguated too. Please consider both WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME, as well as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE when deciding what the best name should be. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter) per recognisable context. He is not notable as a protestor but as Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no problem with the current title. Protests can be violent and criminal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  @NecrothespThe problem with the title is that while the word "protestor" "can" be violent and criminal, it is, as you must know, not nearly the most commonly understood definition of this term. As a result, the word misrepresents the nature of Mr. Barnett's notability. One might just as easily argue that a "criminal" "can" have committed an unlawful protest. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Disambiguators are merely for the purpose of disambiguation, not to provide a detailed description of the reasons for someone's notability. It disambiguates him perfectly successfully. No need to overthink things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp No one here, on either side, is proposing a "detailed description," and to suggest that someone is, is not helpful. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you'd add a bit more effort to your reply here. The debate is over the unassailable fact that the word "protestor" is commonly understood to mean a lawful activity. Several simple alternatives (all of which I support) solve this problem. Further, I would add that even a cursory study of disambiguation conventions shows several techniques including the use of middle nicknames. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think, @Johnadams11, that your argument fails on two points:

  1. I think he is famous for protesting, trespassing, putting his feet on a desk, boasting about it on social media. Elements of that were deemed criminal, elements of it were not.
  2. He was notable since before criminality was established. If he was found not-guilty on appeal, he would remain notable. His notability does not hinge on this being criminal. He might not always be a criminal. He will always be notable for protesting.
  3. I suspect that in some human-rights-centric societies, protesting is assumed to be non criminal. I suspect in some more authoritarian states, it is assumed to be criminal. This is a global website, we should not assume the reader assumes either. I checked Wiktionary and Mariam Webster. Neither mentioned lawfulness nor unlawfulness in their definitions. I think protesting is not implying lawfulness. But of course, parts of what he is noted for were lawful and parts were not.

  CT55555(talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  All true. @Johnadams11: By "detailed description" I meant more than the single word used at present (and especially things like "US Capitol Trespasser", proposed below). It just isn't required. According to WP:NCPDAB: If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term.. As to your comment: ...I would add that even a cursory study of disambiguation conventions shows several techniques including the use of middle nicknames. You will find that these are almost universally frowned upon in article titles and will generally be opposed at RM and/or removed by experienced editors if spotted. This is in fact laid out in WP:NICKNAME: Avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes or parentheses between first and last name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @NecrothespThank you. This is helpful. WP:NCPDAB says plainly: "When there is a usual way of distinguishing two people of the same name, use it." This is clear and unambiguous, and something I would urge editors to consider.

  The man "is" known as "Bigo" according to myriad sources, all linked in my comment above, including NYT, WaPo, CNN, and NBC.

  Using this name, we eliminate the entire debate over "protestor," free ourselves from tedious conversations about level of detail, and assign Mr. Barnett a name that uniquely defines him, and solves all problems of disambiguation for all eternity. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  It seems that you have not participated in many RM discussions. May I respectfully suggest you do so before going against standard guidelines and procedures that have been set out by consensus over many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp You provided a link to the controlling principle in WP:NCPDAB. I quoted from it, and used it to formulate a logical argument. Now, instead of engaging on what I've suggested you bail out and make an utterly unhelpful and boastful quip. I respectfully suggest you learn how civil discourse is conducted before going against commonly understood standards.Johnadams11 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay. You clearly have no intention of listening to far more experienced editors than yourself. I have participated in hundreds of RMs and seen their outcomes. I know what I'm talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  And I repeat: Avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes or parentheses between first and last name. Very clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct sir. I listen to reason, not resumes. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  With respect the quote from WP:NICKNAMES, I agree it's clear and I agree that in the absence of the disambiguation issue it should be abided. I offered several other solutions, most notably "Capitol rioter." But you've rejected every attempt to improve this article because of your deliberate refusal to acknowledge the glaringly obvious point that Richard Barnett, one of the icons of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, is not most aptly described as a "Protestor." Johnadams11 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  "Capitol rioter" works for me, too, as a disambiguator. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  @CT55555Thank you. This is helpful.

  Point 1 (notable for some criminal activity, some not, etc.) , is I believe inaccurate. In order to make this point, you'd have to find an activity inside the Capitol which was not criminal. Given that he was charged with unlawfully being inside the building, I don't believe this is possible. All other activities such as the boasting, were after the fact, peripheral, and insignificant to the central crimes.

  Point 2, is new and a very persuasive argument against use of the word "criminal," something I shall no longer advocate for. Thank you. Importantly though, this argument has no application in discussion of "Capitol rioter," or "January 6th Rioter," etc.

  (Of tertiary interest, each of the above arguments are especially curious to me personally because I drafted an article on Barnett in February '21, and was speedy deleted by editors advising that he would only be notable upon conviction!)

  Point 3, is another idea I agree with. Indeed, I think arguments which highlight the varying understanding of the word "protestor" actually argue for greater specificity than that word can provide.

  A far better nominee -- that solves for all issues of disambiguation, global understanding, and durability over time is "Capitol rioter." Johnadams11 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I actually find "capitol rioter" agreeable. Although I note @Necrothesp's comment about preferring one word. Still, I'd be open to that. Thanks for being open minded enough to consider my points.

  About the people who said he would only be notable upon conviction. I see that argument a lot. I don't see it so black and white, but the court case (as I see things) is a second event, and therefore removed the WP:BLP1E argument that is often used for articles like this. I therefore hypothesize that it was less about his criminality and more about a second event. If I had seen this at AFD I might have argued to keep, I think he is very notable.

  Anyway, I really appreciate you being open to being persuaded at this later stage in the discussion. CT55555(talk) 17:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying we always use only one word. We don't. But I see no value in moving away from a valid one-word disambiguator that disambiguates him perfectly well to a more complex one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp You assert the word "perfectly," without ever replying to the contention that the word "protestor," by it's most commonly understood definition, utterly mis-represents the notability of this individual. If there were other John Wilkes Booth's, would we have considered "Protestor" as well? Johnadams11 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, because Booth is better known as an assassin, which would be the disambiguator used! But you seem to be misunderstanding the point of disambiguation. It is simply to distinguish individuals of the same names, which the current disambiguator does perfectly well. As to misrepresenting "the notability of this individual", it does not. Misguided or not, he was part of a protest. A violent one, but still a protest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp What is your opposition to "Capitol rioter?" It is far more specific, far less general, and far less euphemistic. It's SINGLE deficiency is that it uses two words -- a relatively small price to pay for the massive improvement in accuracy. Johnadams11 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, its single deficiency is that it's completely unnecessary. He took part in a protest. That's why he was there. Misguided, yes. Violent, yes. But still a protest. This whole thing is a solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Let's conclude this then. Your inability to see how "Protester" utterly misrepresents this man's notability is a signal of willfully ignoring the obvious. Might we as easily call him a "Tourist?" Violent yes, but still a tourist. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  A good point. You've persuaded me. I remain opposed. CT55555(talk) 13:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @CT55555 Terrific. This licenses me then to point out that your initial draft of the article was so hastily prepared that you failed to learn or comprehend the most basic facts pertinent to this offender -- that he did not in fact place is his feet on "Nancy Pelosi's desk." Your contributions on this article, including your initial comment on this MR have sadly been mostly of low effort. Not flattering. Johnadams11 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Check out "US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attack" and Capitol riot trial starts for man with feet on Pelosi desk and WP:CIVIL CT55555(talk) 14:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sir -- your "you've persuaded me; I rename opposed" comment was decidedly uncivil. If you didn't intend that, please correct it. Separately, I've no idea what you're trying to demonstrate with this link. The desk was in NP's office suite but not NP's specifically.Johnadams11 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed @Necrothesp persuaded me back to my oppose. That is what happens in discussions, people persuade each other. There is nothing uncivil about that. Regarding whose desk it was, we go by what reliable sources say. Check out WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. CT55555(talk) 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @CT55555 I must be confused. You appeared to have been replying to me. What was it that @Necrothesp said, that caused you to "remain" in a state you were already in?Johnadams11 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I opposed the move. Then you persuaded me that Capitol rioter was fine. Then @Necrothesp persuaded me that it wasn't. CT55555(talk) 14:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Richard "Bigo" Barnett. His nickname is definitely the most neutral way to disambiguate. It's not common enough to be the name of the article ("Bigo Barnett"), but it's certainly common enough to be a disambiguater. In fact I would argue that his common name is neither 'Richard Barnett' nor 'Bigo Bartnett' but rather 'Richard "Bigo" Barnett'. @Johnadams11 listed notable sources that use that exact phrasing including his own twitter account. This title concisely disambiguates and also bypasses the clear controversy about the implications of the word protester. -- GuessAndCheck (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

— talk:GuessAndCheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We do not name articles on Wikipedia in this way. Either Richard Barnett (with a disambiguator) or Bigo Barnett, but not combined. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp While this may be the ambition, it is not the practice. Here is one prominent, easy to find, and sort-of related article on one "Richard B. Spencer." In examining at least a dozen citations within the article, I found almost none that noted his middle name or even middle initial. Instead, the middle initial was plainly used as a disambiguator from myriad other Richard Spencers. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a nickname, however, so not relevant to this article. And many RMs have removed unused middle initials from article titles. While some may exist, they are neither common nor consistent with guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

For a time this conversation centered around editors pointing to the vaunted WP:COMMONNAME article, where of course nicknames may be used when they are used most commonly. Here, while "Bigo" is not used MOST commonly, it is quite undeniably the second most common way he's referred to as svidenced by the myriad references already posted. In any case "Bigo" is just one suggestion. Another is "Capitol rioter." Unlike those who have developed a remarkable dogma for the status quo, I am agreeable to most any solution that solves the very obvious inaccuracy of the word "Protestor." Johnadams11 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Change.. "Protestor" is too broad a term given the subject's notoriety; note that this subject only has a wikipedia entry because of notoriety. The DOJ list the charges he was convicted on here. My recommendation is to replace "protestor" with "US Capitol Trespasser".Quiddy (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2023 (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.

Ongoing discussion about this article's image(s)

It has been suggested that we find a better image of the subject -- see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74#US Capitol attack participant photos. The obvious candidate is the Saul Loeb photo from Jan 6 of Branson with feet on desk, as there has been extensive discussion of the image itself, its origin, and reception. Thoughts? Feoffer (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Desk photo can't be used as it's commercialised. I'm going to continue to argue that the mugshot should be used because (1) A non-free image cannot be created while he is incarcerated. (2) The FBOP does not release mugshots, even for FOIA requests, so we can't use the federal one even though it would be public domain. (3) The copyright owner of the mugshot is a local government, so it has no commerical interest regardless. –DMartin 17:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

THe thinking is that we'd make an article about the Loeb photo, which is more notable than Barnett himself. Feoffer (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I did go ahead and file a FOIA request to the BOP for a mugshot just in case they have changed their policy. –DMartin 17:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Richard Barnett in the Speaker's office, a fork of the article IMO, shouldn't have been created as the separate article in the first place. I appreciate the creator's efforts, but I question the appropriateness of the (sub)topic (i.e. the event itself) in this project. Whether it meets WP:NEVENT is one thing, but potentially failing to meet WP:NOTNEWS worries me more. Furthermore, I'm concerned that too many details about the (sub)topic may have been inserted. George Ho (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It make sense to me to cover this material here, or to cover Barnett there. Feoffer (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge The content can obviously be covered in one article to keep the closely related information together. Reywas92^Talk 16:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a preference which way we merge? It seems to me that Barnett is dancing very close to BLP1E -- are we really gonna cover this subject for the rest of his life? In contrast, the Loeb photo has enduring notability. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Loeb is notable for not only participating in the attack but also incarcerated. Both the attack and the conviction are separate events, even when related. Notable for also being on trial. Furthermore, the photo article currently doesn't mention Loeb being incarcerated. Even when it does, the issue of the photo's independent notability (or lack of) matters more than mere assumption that the photo actually does. George Ho (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC); expanded, 12:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Almost forgot. Another matter is how to well express the story about Loeb and the photo of him. George Ho (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Loeb was the photographer, Barnett is the subject, but I get what you're saying. I'll merge that stuff here. Feoffer (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have a dozen other biographies on individual rioters, any of which are arguably BLP1E and wouldn't be covered the rest of their lives. What's notable is Barnett and what he did, and the photograph of it can be covered in the context of his article per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Works for me! Feoffer (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)