Talk:Killing of Renée Good/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2026 (2)

Claiming that Ms. Good was trying to turn around is editorializing. There is no evidence of her intent, only clear visible video evidence of what happened. Remove this editorial comment, or provide a citation, or replace it with "Ms. Good was operating her vehicle into the ICE agent when she was fatally shot." ~2026-14266-5 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a current event. Wikipedia is not a news organization. As time goes on more information will likely be made available. Discussion as to whether a sentence should be re-written based on available facts is encouraged, but it not eligible for an edit request as it is not specific or uncontroversial at this time. —Sirdog (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Bullshit

She ran her vehicle into an officer after being told to exit the vehicle and he was well within his rights to shoot her. ~2026-14929-1 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of the incident. Try a conservative news source more to your liking, like Alpha News. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2026

The statement she was turning her car around is not accurate or proven at this time and should reflect that. That is one persons biased view, not based on fact. It will be disproven. ~2026-14084-0 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a current event. Wikipedia is not a news organization. As time goes on more information will likely be made available. Discussion as to whether a sentence should be re-written based on available facts is encouraged, but it not eligible for an edit request as it is not specific or uncontroversial at this time. —Sirdog (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Date of shooter identification

@Einsof: At least we should note that the identification was made on December 8 or "the day after the shooting", as to show that it was not immediately known afterwards. I agree that the time might have been overkill, but... Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

(marking as being resolved) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

OR

Hi Pbritti can you explain what you have in mind with your OR tag? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Also this - we don't usually add sources to "See also" so where do you propose putting this one? In fact, external links are only for things that are not linked in the article. Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Guettarda: Of course. Thanks for your work on this article thus far, by the way. The background section should not incorporate sources that were published prior to the shooting, as connecting the contents of those sources to the event described in the article requires novel conclusions derived by editors rather than reliable sources. In this case, we will almost certainly see reliable sources that support drawing a connection between the federal deployment to American cities and presence of two thousand agents in the Twin Cities. However, the sources present in the article do not make that connection themselves, and are as such original research. Because this is extremely early in this article's development, I opted for a tag to encourage cleanup rather than wholesale removal of the content. However, policy supports removing that content, as this is an article where BLP applies. As for George Floyd, I am not seeing a pertinent connection here. It is best to not throw in see alsos based solely on a limited set of characteristics, but instead only add see alsos when they serve a substantial navigational purpose. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti However, the sources present in the article do not make that connection themselves, and are as such original research You're right, the specific ones I cited did not make the connection. Added one. Fixed now - would you be willing to revert your tag?

It is best to not throw in see alsos based solely on a limited set of characteristics, but instead only add see alsos when they serve a substantial navigational purpose - which is the point of my addition. If the reporting and talk on social media is mentioning George Floyd, then it seems like readers might be interested in that background. (After all, that was 5.5 years ago, many adults today would have been young adolescents.) Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Due to the failure of new sourcing the manifest and the removal of the tag, I have removed the content that was most obviously original research from that section in accordance with the BLP policy. That content for which there was a citation that suggested verification of that material as connected with this subject was left undisturbed. Regarding the see also, that section can often have the result of implying editorializing on the part of editors. In that case, a city officer murdered someone in a crime that was determined to have racial bias elements. This shooting solely involved the actions of an ICE agent alleging self defense (I think the video suggests otherwise, but that's a matter for the courts), killing someone. As best I can tell, nobody is suggesting that this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer has not (yet) been convicted of murder. However, by linking the Murder of George Floyd as a see also (rather than within the context of a reliable source making that connection), readers may interpret the events as more similar than we can authoritatively say at the moment. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Initial bias

Language such as ‘unarmed’ while the vehicle is a deadly weapon, stating she was killed in her car when she was being detained and tried to flee the scene. This will feed social discord and potential violence ~2026-14664-7 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

100% spot on. ~2026-14844-3 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I am the one who wrote that and I am confident that you are incorrect. She was not armed and there she was not using the vehicle as a weapon. Just watch the video. The officer who killed her stood in front of the car and she was turning the car to the right, away from him. There is no evidence of what you are saying. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like you are just offering your opinion when you say "she was not using the vehicle as a weapon." You can't read her mind. Her plan may have been to run down an ICE agent that day. MyMets (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The burden would be on the government to show that mens rea. Regardless, we don't speculate, we reflect what reliable sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

what? the car was turning away from the agents. please watch the video of the incident. Argkitsune (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved: There is currently no text in the article that uses the word 'unarmed'. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

She was not being detained. Shocksingularity (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Bias

unarmed is inaccurate. The position of dhs is the vehicle was the weapon. ~2026-14403-9 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved: There is currently no text in the article that uses the word 'unarmed'. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Perpetrator

The ICE agent is referred to as the perpetrator in the infobox, however, it seems premature to say that this was a crime or self-defense. Is this typical for cases like this where details are scarce? Slothwizard (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, under that we have "Deaths 1 (Good)". That could be interpreted as sentiment. Probably better to add her first name. Jevansen (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, under that we have "Deaths 1 (Good)". That could be interpreted as sentiment. Agreed, and you aren't the first editor to point that out. Placed it back to just "1" and added inline comment encouraging consensus first. —Sirdog (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

1 (Renee Good) or 1, but not 1 (Good). Guettarda (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That was my bad, you are right. I reinstated with given name included to prevent confusion. Slothwizard (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Slothwizard per my comment in the previous section, yes. More than being premature, there's the problem of NPOV, since it's only one of two competing narratives being presented right now. We can't pick sides, just document what's being said. Guettarda (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

In Shooting of Jacob Blake, the participants parameter is used instead. This could be a better alternative, although the shooter remains unnamed in this case. Slothwizard (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm against labeling the agent as a perpetrator unless a conviction is secured. If he's charged, we can change it to "accused". I think the participants parameter is better used here. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved: The infobox now uses the label Participants to refer to the ICE agent. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

NPOV

Ivanhardybirt When there are multiple conflicting accounts or interpretations of something, we can't pick one side and say that it's true in Wikipedia's voice. WP:NPOV says that we must present all sides without taking sides. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It also say, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."War (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Look at the videos from the other side

Wiki trying to be blatantly against ICE. LOOK AT THE VIDEOS FROM FURTHER DOWN THE STREET. She was warned to stop. She drove at the officer in front of her car. He shot her through the front window after he was struck. ~2026-14844-3 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that. Everything controversial should be verified by one or more reliable sources, we may disagree about what a video means, but we can all agree on what the AP said. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

NBC reported that the video your referring to appeared to show the agent struck by the vehicle. I've added the detail and source to the article R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The claim that she was shot through the front windshield is at the very least disputed. "One of the agents on the driver's side door backed away, and then opened fire, shooting three times through the driver's side window, witnesses said." https://www.ktvu.com/news/minneapolis-shooting-woman-shot-ice --Slashme (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14844-3 Every Wikipedia article requires reliable factual sources. Claiming that Wikipedia has some hidden bias makes no sense, as this is simply information gathered from various sources. If you have issues with the actual sources that the information is gathered from, or an issue with some other Wikipedia policy, that is a separate discussion which should be had separate from any discussions regarding perceived bias contained in this article. You can start by reading one of the following articles:

• Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines
• The second of Wikipedia's "5 Pillars"
• Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines
• Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines
• Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources
• Wikipedia's list of reliable sources
  — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't just say "the videos", you provide examples. Do that, then my fellow editors will consider what you are saying. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 16:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Which videos, pray tell? kencf0618 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Blame victim?

The article somewhat takes it out of context and gives impression that the car was only rushing to flatten the agent, except vid shows the car was merely turning away from the other agents, and even trying to also weave past the agent who fired. That nuance is important as it affects the perception of intent. So instead of problematically claiming the car made clear straight‑line charge at the office. I add this source - and merely state - "The vehicle then begins to drive forward, at which point an officer near the front of the car pulls his weapon and fires into the vehicle." That's what happened and isn't a loaded statement like previous version.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Official statements and sources corroborating them definitely should be taken with a grain of salt considering how many details from said statements have already been contradicted by video recordings taken by several eyewitnesses. It's hard to call this out while trying not to be viewed as biased but why should "hard to believe [the agent] is alive" be taken seriously whatsoever when the several angles recorded by onlookers show the unnamed agent who shot the victim walking off completely unscathed? B3251_(talk) 01:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I agree on that point fully. The issue is article reflects the official gov and ICE narrow version of events that the woman intended to do murder. So I tried to add in NPR reporting, as they gave a more holistic account. It seems one guy, Guettarda had added their edit - saying the shooting occured also when the car was driving by. Specifically shooting the car at its side. That context is very important as it shows the car was in a path passing by already when being shot at. Their edit got undone but I think that should be retained and I see other sources confirming this version too. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree the "shooting from the side" context is very important and should be retained. Yes sources confirm it, but we can also literally see it with our own eyes in cited videos. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The name

"A hospital record obtained by The Associated Press identified the woman as 37-year-old Renae Macklin-Good, though business records spelled her name as Renee Nicole Macklin Good."

— https://apnews.com/live/minneapolis-ice-shooting-updates

Should we update the name (either only in the article text or also the article title) to include Macklin as well? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering there is another Renee Good on Wikipedia anyway, I would say yes. Wyliepedia @ 01:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

2020 American Academy of Poets Prize

https://poets.org/2020-on-learning-to-dissect-fetal-pigs

this is probably her

2020 Academy of American Poets Prize

On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs by Renée Nicole Macklin

jengod (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, according to https://www.startribune.com/she-was-an-amazing-human-being-mother-identifies-woman-shot-killed-by-ice-agent/601559922 it is the same person. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02JqUgwhEtEB4haHrKABYusKEbVkteJ6suAGCzLsiBtBRyVEngs9U2JKMa6srryoEGl&id=100057209689889&mibextid=wwXIfr

Facebook post from ODU Eng Dept

2020 ODU COLLEGE POETRY PRIZE

UNDERGRADUATE WINNER:

"On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs" by Renée Macklin

Renée Macklin is from Colorado Springs, Colorado and is studying Creative Writing at

ODU. Her poetry has been published in Metrosphere and Coronado Literary Review, and she currently co-hosts a podcast with her husband, comedian Tim Macklin. When she is not writing, reading, or talking about writing, she has movie marathons and makes messy art with her daughter and two sons. jengod (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While interesting, facebook posts are not generally acceptable sources, especially in BLP situations. EllieDellie (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Paradox of engaging in speculative thought

We at Wikipedia as a rule try to stick to explicit, verifiable facts. However, given that the government and quarters in the media that are supportive of the government are endeavoring to support a narrative that Good attempted to use her vehicle to attack an officer or officers, it is understandable that Wikipedia is going down the path of speculation. To wit, it is appropriate that this is entered into the text in brackets: "[disputed – discuss]" --toward the end of the paragraph, beginning with the sentence, "One agent attempted to open the door of the car and reach through the window."

Nonetheless, we need to take care to return to Wikipedia principles, be conscious of the risk of going down this path and be aware that we are seemingly going down this path.Dogru144 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It's usually more effective to just say what you mean. Einsof (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should never engage in speculation and then add their own musings to articles. If reliable sources widely report on speculation by prominent people, it may be appropriate to summarize that as long as it is clear that the content is not stated as factual in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Killings by ICE, killings of individuals in ICE custody

Is this the first known incident of ICE officers in connection with a outside of an ICE facility? Is there any place in the article for mention that there have been several deaths of people while detained by ICE? Last year was a record year for deaths in ICE custody. '2025 was ICE’s deadliest year in two decades. Here are the 32 people who died in custody' January 4, 2026, 'The Guardian' https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline Dogru144 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No to your first question, that incident is the second See Also link. Mentions of killings by ICE might have a place in the Background section, but only if it actually is pertinent to this incident. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 02:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Cause

The infobox contained "cause=Alleged vehicle-ramming attack", which gives weight to one side of the argument. It might just as well read "cause=Alleged unprovoked shooting", giving weight to the other. Since the two sides of the argument can't agree, I've changed it to just "cause=Disputed". — The Anome (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We don't know the "cause", and I really don't think we need one. How about a note saying "leave blank until there's an official enquiry" (or something of the sort). Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Bias in lead and title

Anyone who's watched these videos and looked at a larger swath of reporting knows this is not true: "After driving near an ICE agent,". She drove AT the ICE agent. The language of title implies undue killing. Until there is a trial or due process, Wikipedia should not be drawing legal conclusions. Tallard (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

US sources seem to be dividing on partisan lines here, but there seems to be broad consensus among independent non-US sources that she was not driving at the agent. "Killing" means just that; there is no implication that the killing was either lawful or unlawful in the title. — The Anome (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is why the article talks about "killing", not "murder". It is highly disputed if she drove at the ICE agent - a large number of sources disagree with this assesment. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Currently the lead also states: "Good was idling in a car at the scene of an ongoing ICE operation, when she was approached by ICE agents who gave conflicting orders. As Good drove by one of the agents he shot her in the head while not standing in the path of the car." The bias here is staggering. Dr Fell (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead looks correct to me, where is the bias? BeŻet (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I am opposed to a detailed description of the event being in the lead. It’s too much to break down in a fair yet concise manner. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Who "gave conflicting orders". I'm certain those orders where "you're under arrest", or "turn the engine off and get out"...or something like that. "As Good attempted to exit the area" should probably be changed to "flee the arrest". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: The conflicting orders were “Get out of the car” from one goon and “Drive away” from another one. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While a helpful signal in some ways, reminder that WP:NOTFORUM. Dr Fell (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dr Fell While true, the person @JTtheOG was replying to was making nothing but ideologically-motivated guesses about what happened (rather than looking at sources). And JT is right, as well. While he probably shouldn't use that language, it's far more productive to the topic than just creating fictionalized versions of events to decide what the article should say. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 your certainty about those orders is not shared by witnesses or reliable sources. We follow what sources say, not what we're certain of. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the source for the conflicting orders? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"As Good attempted to exit the area" doesn't accurately capture the event, but "flee the arrest" is worse, as it presumes intent. Dr Fell (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Got any RS to justify "flee the arrest"? EvansHallBear (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I think this is properly described in the lead right now. This may change when new publications appear. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

From the two sources cited in the article:

• This source says:
  • An eyewitness told MPR News that ICE agents gave conflicting orders to a driver in south Minneapolis on Wednesday, with one agent ordering her to drive away from the scene where an ICE vehicle was stuck in a snowbank while another yelled for her to get out of her car as he reached for the door handle.
• This source says:
  • “The ICE agents got out of their vehicles and were screaming at her to ‘move, move, move,’” Heller said. “She wasn’t moving at first, and then they came over to her side of the car and tried to open the door, I assume to drag her out.”

These two sources have been combined in the article to produce:

• Eyewitnesses and videos show that ICE agents were giving conflicting orders to the driver. One agent told the driver to drive away from the scene, while another shouted at the driver to get out of the car.

The eyewitness statement that "She wasn’t moving at first" should lead us to conclude that one order followed the second, which really doesn't make them conflicting. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the sources. Your earlier comment beginning with "I'm certain those orders were..." followed by dialogue you made up was borderline WP:NOTHERE behavior. Einsof (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Einsof: Do you agree we should change the wording from "conflicting orders" to "successive orders"? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the MPR source says "An eyewitness told MPR News that ICE agents gave conflicting orders", no. Einsof (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

A. The first source also states "“Some of them were leaving, and they just went around her, but ICE gave her orders to leave, while at the same time, another ICE person said, ‘Get out of the car,’ and he reached for her door handle. And then there was an ICE agent in front of her vehicle. So it was difficult for her to leave, as she'd been ordered to do,” Callenson said."

B. It could be considered conflicting if multiple officers make opposing orders in short succession.

C. There are multiple reasons for her to not move at first, it could be because the orders followed each other (though it would be kinda weird if a witness were to express "she only began moving after she was ordered to move" as "She wasnt moving at first") or it could be that she was being yelled at by multiple angry police officers with conflicting orders and required time to determine what to do. Regardless, our sources say conflicting, and it would be inadvisable (and perhaps SYNTH) to attempt to divine the situation ourselves. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where to put this, but we cannot have people changing the lede to gibberish like These claims have been scrutinized by eyewitnesses and journalists' analysis of video footage, with local figures and by Democratic Party lawmakers disputing federal officials justification of the killing, the latter of whom have called for a criminal investigation. The lede doesn't need to stay frozen, but it does need to be grammatical. Einsof (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Protests against the killing of Renee Good

The following discussion 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.

---

There is a draft editors may be interested in: Draft:Protests against the killing of Renee Good. CNC (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Does this need its own article? Dr Fell (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That is the current discussion. CNC (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, it's probably something that can be easily bundled into here and then forked out later if it grows sufficiently. If that gets pushed out now as an article, unless it's rapidly pushing 20k-40k size, it'll end up merged here anyway currently. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we need and "aftermath" section, with things like this. No way to know if these protests might have legs but for now I think a brief mention here is what's best. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

N/m, we have an aftermath section. Guettarda (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2026 (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.

Notification of new potentially-related article

Operation Salvo was just announced. There was a protest in NYC against ICE/Noem and in direct response to Good's death as Kristi Noem visited the city and announced a new ICE operation in NYC. If others would like to add this or related information I think it could be appropriate. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Archiving period

The following discussion 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.

---

Can we please change the archiving period to one day, since this page is now over 200 kB? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done — The Anome (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to object. 1 day is too short: not everyone is on Wikipedia every day. I changed it to 3 days. Manual archiving can take care of the quickly-resolved threads, but nothing is stale after just 24hrs. We don't want editors to have to check every single day or else miss something. Levivich (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed above btw. I'm OK with 1 day but I also know others editors prefer slower so I think 2-3 is probably for the best. Bare in mind that manual archiving has taken care of all the archiving so far. CNC (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2026 (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.

Lead Language

The following discussion 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.

---

We need to decide on precisely what to say in the lead section. I've tried to keep it as absolutely neutral as possible with the driver being shot as she accelerated forward without any mention of the exact position of the agent, any mention of contact between the car and the agent, any mention of her precise trajectory, and as neutral a wording as possible about "debunked/disputed/contradicted/contested" claims. What should the lead say regarding the exact incident? -- Veggies (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This whole "neutrality" thing doesn't mean we have to be "neutral" about what anyone can see with their own eyes. He violated policy by placing himself in front of the vehicle. She steered the car to the right to avoid hitting him. No evidence that she actually hit him with the car, plenty of evidence that she tried to avoid it. He shot her, the 2nd and 3rd shots were from the side when she clearly was not posing an imminent threat. Calling her a "domestic terrorist" is a monstrous lie. BTW I'm not "your dude". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This whole "neutrality" thing doesn't mean we have to be "neutral" about what anyone can see with their own eyes. He violated policy by placing himself in front of the vehicle. You can see police policies in the video with your own eyes? Is it possible to learn this power? No evidence that she actually hit him with the car, You mean apart from the aforementioned video evidence that we can (ahem) "see with our own eyes"? He shot her, the 2nd and 3rd shots were from the side when she clearly was not posing an imminent threat. He shot at her three times. That's all we need to say (with cited sources). "...when she posed no imminent threat" is OR soapboxing, plain and simple. Calling her a "domestic terrorist" is a monstrous lie. Maybe so, but, coming from federal authorities, it merits being added as an attributed quote, not as the truth. BTW I'm not "your dude". Stay mad. That's how I like you. :) -- Veggies (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• I will ask both editors to focus on discussing the article instead of attacking and goading each other or I will have to remove you two from this talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Why should I have to be civil and "assume good faith" to someone who's clearly trolling me? I've got no time for this bullshit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato:I asked an open question to the entire body of editors. Max replied with dubious arguments. I responded by pointing out the flaws in his points, admittedly with a smart-alecky tone. So what? The only "goading" was a reply to his last sentence (which was a reference to an earlier interaction). Nowhere did I "attack" him. That characterization is way out of line. -- Veggies (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Stay mad. That's how I like you. :) is way out of line. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not really. It's quite a mild ribbing of someone too emotionally invested here to maintain NPOV. -- Veggies (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Blocked MaxBrowne2 and Veggies for 31 hours. — Newslinger talk 15:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody asked me, but the answer to both "why should I..." and "so what?" is: this is the talk page of an article about a mother who was shot and killed just a few days ago. This isn't an article about ice skating or some obscure species of frog or a something that happened last century, it's not a user talk page or a chat room. It's possible, even likely, that friends and family of the real people affected by this tragedy will read this page, now or in the future. So: everyone on their best behavior here. No snark, no PvP on this page, please. Take it outside. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2026 (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.

Motive

I removed "Self-defense" (per DHS spokesperson on behalf of officer). Per WP:NPOV we can't take sides, and the claim that it was self defence is very much in dispute. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

AGREE. We should be wary of putting any opinions in any article (unless the article is itself about an opinion). We should be particularly cautious about putting a loaded claim like "self-defense" into a contentious topics article. There is scant evidence in WP:RS that would support such a statement or assertion. Bill Heller (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

New video angle

CNN uploaded a new video from a different angle that takes place just before the shooting, not sure if this can be directly incorporated or would need a better source.

Newly-obtained video shows moments leading up to deadly ICE shooting skarz (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We can report what third parties are saying about the video; we can't draw our own conclusions about it in the article, no matter how sure we are about what it depicts. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. — The Anome (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You can try to add it externally like the others. It’s best to find one without all the commentary though. R. G. Checkers ^talk 16:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The commentary is the actual secondary source material from the WP:RS. The video itself is a primary source. — The Anome (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to rely on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, per WP:RS. —Beneficii (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but I am just trying to show the video without having to watch 30 seconds of a CNN newsroom and anchor with music. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

'Murder'

The following discussion 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.

---

"Killing" is grossly inappropriate here. She was murdered. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As no-one has been convicted of murder, killing is the correct wording. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Choosing_article_titles_about_violence_and_deaths#Flowchart UndefinedRachel (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The current name is the convention we use, given where information is now. The article will be certainly renamed later, but this is the right fit now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Until it is legally defined as a murder, Wikipedia will give the benefit of the doubt, even if editors such as myself agree that it was a murder. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 16:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the other responses. "Killing" is appropriate for now; this may change as the story develops. "Murder" is a legal term and requires a conviction—a trial, if one occurs, could take years. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Except in the most extreme cases (e.g. where there is a high level of premeditation), I would say "killing" should be used initially. If the killer is convicted of murder, then we can call it that, as has been the convention on similar articles. ZLima12 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2026 (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.

Treated at Hospital

This sentence needs more clarity DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated the ICE agent who fired the shots was treated at a hospital and later released, What was he treated for? Was he treated for a headache? or bad judgment? Inayity (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably 'stated' should be changed to 'claimed' unless there is some sort of reliable source to back this up. We could add something to the end of the sentence saying that no injuries have been confirmed, given what we say below that in the US government sub-section. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree because I am very confused what would have injured him? Maybe the gun hurt his trigger finger. --Inayity (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If you look at him walking after he shot Good, there's some stiffness in his first several steps, which he seems to walk off. The car may well have made contact with him (probably after he shot her) or he may have strained a muscle. I have no idea what DHS procedure is like in a case like this, so Noem's statement might well be technically correct. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It's also entirely possible that the agent needed treatment for shock or some other psychological distress. Shooting and killing another person—even if legal, morally justifiable, and/or done in self-defense—can be extremely traumatic for the shooter, as many veterans know. Ekpyros (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to add a notation like "reason not specified" or would that be synthesis? aaronneallucas (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Any possible stiffness could be walking on ice or any number of other reasons. Simply stating no injuries confirmed is fine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved: Article now has the following sentence afterwards: A report published by The Guardian the same day said there were "no visible sign in the videos" of injuries to ICE officers in the incident. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Good's actions on the day prior to incident

The following discussion 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.

---

Is there any reliable source regarding the action of Good on the day of the incident? Kristi Noem claims that she was "stalking and impeding" officers and that this started because an ICE car got stuck in the snow. Noem also claims that Good "followed agents all day." Remember (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd not call DHS a RS in this situation, but I'd also not want to remove it until conflicting evidence was reported on. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

An article published today in The Guardian (which I just cited regarding her education) says that her ex-husband told the Associated Press that Good had just dropped off her youngest son at school on Wednesday and was driving home with her partner when they encountered a group of ICE agents on a snowy street. Funcrunch (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and sharing. Remember (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

As a note here, a related discussion was created below called #Noem allegations of stalking all day without proof. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2026 (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.

Renee or Renée

The following discussion 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.

---

Lots of sources are using "Renee", but I've also seen "Renée" (for example, on her purported Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/reneee.n.good/ ), and sources are sometimes bad with accents (compare Delcy Rodríguez and Delcy Rodriguez). Thoughts? Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The name she published her poem under seems to indicate that her first name was spelled Renée, but I'm unsure why most source are reporting otherwise. I would support updating the article to include the accent. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTRM (be bold when making uncontroversial changes) and WP:SPNC (an example includes spelling Milena Kitić as Milena Kitic based on self-published sources), I have moved the page to include the accent in Renée. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the key issue is that we do not yet have consistent evidence that she regularly used the accented form "Renée" outside of a small number of literary contexts. The clearest use of the accent that I have seen is in connection with her 2020 Academy of American Poets award, where she is identified as "Renée Nicole Macklin". However, it is unclear whether this reflects her own preferred spelling or a stylistic choice or error introduced by the publisher.

By contrast, the vast majority of major news outlets reporting on her death (AP, Reuters, People, Sky News, etc.) use "Renee" without an accent in headlines and lead text.

The Instagram account cited above also does not appear to be a reliable indicator of longstanding self-usage, as it's only image is from yesterday(!?).

For a fuller discussion of the name variations and sourcing issues, see the note at Killing_of_Renée_Good#cite_note-17.

Given the current sourcing, I would lean toward moving the page back, as we do not yet have sufficient evidence to establish the accented form as a consistently self-published or clearly preferred spelling rather than a limited literary or third-party usage. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I.e. I fail to see that "consistent and unambiguous self-published version" of the Renée spelling, so this was a controversial in my opinion. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Are accents part of the English grammar? Why won't we use Chinese characters along with other foreign letterings? It looks like a case of cliché vs cliche situation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The é character has been in use in English for a few centuries, and still is. “Cliché” is the more common spelling. Nobody is suggesting introducing new characters here. palpalpalpal (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The Instagram account linked above is fake, but her real one (as reported on by several reliable sources such as The Guardian) also used "Renée Good" with the accent. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the article title should use the diacritic unless there is a showing that the vast majority of RS uses the diacritic (I'm generally opposed to diacritics in article titles). Because I think that, I also think the move was controversial and should be reverted and anyone who thinks it should have the diacritic should start an RM and post the supporting sources. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPNC — Wikipedia relies on self-published sources when it comes to minor spelling variations such as diacritics ("Renée" was used by the subject back in 2020 and as recently as 2026). And your general opposition to diacritics doesn't align with the reality that the titles of many Wikipedia articles include diacritics; it is not Wikipedia's policy to oppose their use in article titles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

SPNC is about name changes, not diacritics. The relevant guideline is WP:DIACRITICS: The use of modified letters (e.g. those with accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). You haven't shown that the diacritic is in general usage in reliable sources. I look at Google News right now and it looks like almost no sources are using the diacritic. Also, you seem to be the only one arguing in favor of the diacritic. Will you reverse your page move please? You can then start an RM and bring the sources, if you want to. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Good's wife released a statement to Minnesota Public Radio ; the full statement can be found at the end of the article. Good's wife refers to her as "Renee", not "Renée". Where is the evidence that Good used the accent "as recently as 2026"? Malerisch (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if she did use Renée privately, or as a nom de plume, it is neither her legal name nor, more importantly, the name used by sources which is the most likely form that readers will search for. Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I first raised this question. Reliable sources are still all using “Renee”, so I think those outweigh the examples of “Renée”. I would support going back to “Renee”. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the move. Clearly controversial without consensus. Levivich (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2026 (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.

Good work

I'm exceptionally proud of everyone's efforts on this article, and keeping it verified. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite good. And everyone's efforts are being read. Yesterday, the article had approaching a million views though the stats were split by the title change. Other related topics such as Jacob Frey and Kristi Noem are spiking too -- see top read. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Transparency, Killing of Renée Good posted to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

See here:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#DHS claims in Killing of Renée Good

Notifying here for transparency. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Gender-based violence

@ForsythiaJo: You added Category:Incidents of violence against women to the article. The category's description reads "Incidents of gender-based violence against women or girls. ". I don't think this would include this killing, unless you have reliable source to back that up? Otherwise that would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, no? Hence why I reverted you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't check for a category description and was treating it as another branch of the Violence against women category tree - which, upon checking, has a similar specification. ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

What specification is that? Kire1975 (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think what is being referred to is "gender-based" - the category "Incidents of violence against women" might seem at first look to be obviously applicable - Renée Good is a woman, and this was definitely violence against her. The further point though is that the description clarifies things - this violence doesn't appear (and as far as I know, no reliable sources say or even speculate it) to be "gender-based". I have to imagine that anyone could have been driving that car and could have gotten killed in a similar circumstance. So it may well be that, given the description, that category isn't meant for this kind of thing. (I have no opinion or statement as to whether the category should be restricted in that way, I'm just trying to lay out what I think Jonatan and ForsythiaJo meant. I hope that's helpful. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Gender-based violence and its subcategories Violence against women and Violence against men are define as violence against a person because of their gender or violence that is disproportionally targeting a specific gender (e.g., FGC). It does not encompass violence against any person in that gender category. (ETA: Sorry for the ping, Jimbo. I misread your comment.) EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The category should probably make that more explicit Trade (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trade I will do that now EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The term "victim"

@R. G. Checkers: Following your edit here, where the word and section label "victim" were removed. We should avoid WP:OR by making our own determination as to whether the driver was a victim, or whether the shooting was justified. However, where multiple reliable sources explicitly use the term, we should normally reflect that usage. For example: NYTimes, CBS News, The Times. As a possible compromise, would using the term shooting victim be acceptable? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. When cases like this go to court, for example, judges will not permit prosecutors to refer to the deceased party as a "victim" because it implies their death was unjustified or unlawful. It might be the case that some media sources have described Good as a victim, and I understand that, but calling her "victim" adds nothing to this article except bias. The same picture of the event is painted if you use another word like "driver". We should use neutral language whenever possible, and we aren't strictly tethered to the exact verbage of sources. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also a risk of WP:UNDUE bias in systematically avoiding a term that is used by multiple secondary sources. Wikipedia does not determine legal culpability Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia isn't a court. Einsof (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No one saying that it is, but what courts and Wikipedia share is neutrality. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, they don't. What "neutrality" means on Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, which is entirely different from the "neutrality" of courts. Levivich (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a case where it has not been established in reliable sources or in a court that a crime (of any sort) has occurred. It is innapropriate, under OR, NPOV, and BLPCRIME, for Wikipedia to insenuate that a crime has occured when that has not been established. So now the only argument is, well, reliable sources describe her as victim. Maybe so, but they are using the word "victim" in a colloquial sense. It is not clear that they are trying to say a crime has occured. So, if we don't use "victim", there is no actual viewpoint that is being suppressed to create a WP:UNDUE concern; rather, it is just an acknowledgement that the word choice by those sources is a sort of recklessness. Wikipedia, however, takes considerable editorial caution with the use of value-laden labels, and I think "victim" is one of those labels. Also, if you take a look at similar cases where criminality was not established--like the Killing of Jordan Neely or Killing of Trayvon Martin--the use of "victim" is not seen, even though I'm sure a reliable source here and there has used that label in both cases. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The word "victim" doesn't mean just "victim of a crime." One can be the "victim" of a killing that is not a crime. You can the "victim" of circumstance. And it's not a value-laden label. The definition of the word is "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action." Anyone who is killed by something is the "victim" of the thing that kills him, e.g., victim of a storm, victim of an accident, victim of war. Levivich (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The point is to act cautiously and choose words with care. As I’ve said, victim can technically mean all you’ve said (at least according to the dictionary), but it is loaded especially in this context. There was no natural disaster or accident that is evident to say well that’s what is clearly meant by “victim”. One significant viewpoint in this case is that Good was unlawfully resisting and putting (in some viewpoints even intentionally) the life of the agents at risk. If this is the case, I don’t think a typical English speaker would say she’s a victim. Just as it would be odd to say if someone broke into my house and tried to murder me and I defended myself with lethal force that the intruder was a victim simply because they were harmed and I was not. In reality I was the victim there and they are the perpetrator, and I’d be kinda pissed if someone called that person a victim. Likewise, it is a significant viewpoint that the agents were the victims in this case, and not Good. It violates NPOV for Wikipedia to favor a certain perspective in this context since legal and ethical culpability remains undetermined. R. G. Checkers ^talk 15:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

One significant viewpoint in this case is that Good was unlawfully resisting and putting (in some viewpoints even intentionally) the life of the agents at risk. If this is the case, I don’t think a typical English speaker would say she’s a victim.

I disagree. Assuming she was 100% in the wrong to "defy orders" or whatever the viewpoint is, the average English speaker would still consider her the victim of being shot. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

At the end of the day we will call her by the label like this, if any, that is WP:COMMONNAME against WP:RS consensus and our policies. Other real-world factors, considerations, politics, and legal frameworks are irrelevant. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Having noticed more comments upon further reading, I have to add more thoughts.

"One significant viewpoint in this case is that Good was unlawfully resisting and putting (in some viewpoints even intentionally) the life of the agents at risk. If this is the case, I don’t think a typical English speaker would say she’s a victim."

STRONG DISAGREE. A typical English speaker (which is a standard I have seen widely used in Wikipedia) would not see her as deserving of a bullet in the head because she's trying to drive away from a scene such as this. It is important to point out that the majority of English speakers reside outside of the United States where police gun violence against citizens is exceptionally rare.

Only in America could a politician claim with a straight face that this woman deserved to be killed. As a Texan, this may be routine to you. This incident is highly foreign to a typical English speaker.

"It violates NPOV for Wikipedia to favor a certain perspective in this context since legal and ethical culpability remains undetermined."

AGREE. Don't include any POV in this or any other article. This includes pro-law enforcement or pro-Good POV in this article. It's important for me to point out that implying that Ms. Good is to blame for her own killing is POV. It's a particularly egregious form of POV as it takes a clear stance (in Wikivoice no less!) about a contentious topic.

Further up you write: "Wikipedia, however, takes considerable editorial caution with the use of value-laden labels, and I think "victim" is one of those labels."

I looked at the MOS article you linked to. "Victim" is not on the list as a value-laden label. Bill Heller (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

A defense against WP:LIBEL is telling the truth. The definition of the word victim is one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent. So just victim seems appropriate. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I see an agent near the front of the vehicle stepping aside, and at least one shot appears to be fired after the front of the vehicle already passed his position and ultimately (the wheels were turned away from the agent shooting). This sequence is difficult to reconcile with any pov pushing wording that implies the vehicle was deliberately driven straight line at the agent with malicious intent. It wasn't self defence. But I only seen plenty of media, unlike US gov, actually avoid stating the driver charged the Officer and describe the overall sequence neutrally. There's no clear evidence she is a criminal but an unfortunate victim in a botched ICE raid. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court. This was said by someone else above but I want to reiterate this. What happens in courts is not really our business. Our business is consolidating secondary source information into an encyclopedic format for information preservation. Bill Heller (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Even if she was shot unintentionally, she is still a victim of shooting. Hence, such description seems to be completely appropriate. But of course she was shot intentionally, as follows from the video and publications. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with others that the term "victim" (or "shooting victim" at a minimum) are appropriate. She was shot and killed. A person who is shot and killed is the victim of a shooting even if that shooting is justified. Also, separately, we now have several highly reliable sources suggesting the shooting was not justified making that whole argument a moot point. Loki (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

we now have several highly reliable sources suggesting the shooting was not justified making that whole argument a moot point +1 to this Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No sources are concluding that it wasn't justified. Sources are reporting things that you think demonstrates it wasn't justified. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The idea Good was using her car as a battering ram has been disproven by WP:RS is a WP:FRINGE theory. To act like there's "two sides" when one is based on misinformation violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "Good was a terrorist" side can be mentioned with WP:DUE weight but should not be considered when determining whether to use the word "victim". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The event occurred yesterday. Nothing has been 'disproven.' Dr Fell (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We could take the word of the US government which is actively threatening to invade Greenland and is not exactly known to be a reliable source... but even so, WP:MANDY applies. We also have videos from multiple angles and our own eyes to disconfirm that she was using her car as a battering ram. So it's unambiguous. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"our own eyes" violates Wikipedia:OR Trade (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The article should report the US government position and others. (The false claim that the US government is actively threatening to invade Greenland is not germane. But if they aren't a reliable source, you can safely disregard anything they say about Greenland.) Again, nothing has been 'disproven' – only disputed. And the footage that was released this afternoon clearly shows the car was being used as a battering ram. Dr Fell (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The false claim that the US government is actively threatening to invade Greenland is not germane Yes it is. It is emblematic of a fascist government which is notoriously unreliable as a source of information.

The footage doesn't show that the car was being used as a battering ram. If it was, you need to cite WP:RS sources. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we have any WP:INDEPENDENT of the U.S. government and it's political enthusiasts WP:RS that claims Good attacked or tried to batter anyone? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Shooting victim is acceptable though it think for Readability's sake, simply saying victim is better. Regardless of what led up to the killing, she was a victim of a person using a gun to shoot her in the head. That makes her a victim. Bill Heller (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Chemical weapons

Einsof none of the category's contents include tear gas. It obviously does not apply to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, how is her killing a chemical attack? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Chemical weapons attacks simply says "This category includes actual and alleged chemical weapons attacks." Have a go at renaming the category "Chemical weapons attacks excluding tear gas" if you truly feel that's how it's supposed to be circumscribed. Einsof (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Einsof no, we don't. Only one side mentioned a chemical attack. And it's unrelated to the topic of this article. It doesn't belong here. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll also point to WP:DEFCAT... this is not a defining feature of the article EvergreenFir (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of non-lethal tear gas against civilian disorder by police does not constitute a chemical attack. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That depends on the local law in question. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The term "tear gas" does not appear in either of the two sources. MPR, which appears to be doing a lot (most?) of the primary reporting here, uses the phrase "chemical weapons". Einsof (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The MPR article that mentions "chemical weapons" clarifies two paragraphs down that it's pepper spray and pepper balls. --Slashme (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Pepper spray" isn't a regulated term. It doesn't mean anything except that the product might contain capsaicin, along with any number of other unknown chemicals. "Chemical weapon" is accurate. Einsof (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Chemical weapon brings mustard gas to mind. Chemical irritant? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple kinds of chemical weapons. Just as both a club and a howitzer are physical weapons, both tear gas and mustard gas are chemical weapons. However, the tear gas incident is not the main subject of this article, and so I think it's misleading to use that category for the article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorism

Should we put a Domestic Terrorism catagory for this article since this is what they are calling it? She was a "domestic terrorist"? Inayity (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Depends on who "they" are. If they're the vast majority of WP:RS using the label in their own voice: yes. Until then: no. I think right now it's just the US federal govt using that label, and they're not an RS. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It has not been established that Good was a domestic terrorist. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If and only if reliable sources call it that without attribution to a politician. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No. One can say it was a case of state terror by ICE, but this should be done by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

One cannot. Reminder WP:FORUM. Dr Fell (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I see what MVBW is saying. If reliable sources called this state terror, we could do so too, by reference to those sources. But unless and until that happens, we shouldn't. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

MVBW says the event cannot be labeled 'domestic terrorism' but can be labeled 'state terror' which is entirely absurd. The descriptor should be coming from sources, and there's no reason 'domestic terrorism' would be inherently beyond the pale. This is an excellent example of the kind of bias we should be rooting out. Dr Fell (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Who is calling her a domestic terrorist that is deemed mentally competent, is WP:INDEPENDENT of the Trump organization and it's enthusiasts, and is WP:RS? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be a serious bias. Being honest, it really seems like the Trump administration needs a justification for what happened and is making a claim that is libelous/outrageous to shift blame, given that all witnesses have contradicted the government's story. I really want to be "neutral" with the article and give all sides a fair shot, but the government's story is (forgive me for being a little blunt here) a work of fiction contradicted by everyone else and neutral analyses of the situation. Not that we can't cover that perspective, but it should definitely not be treated as fact. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses and analysis section

Should the eyewitnesses accounts in the "Analysis" section be moved to the "Incident" section? Remember (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering how charged some of the quotes are, i think it'd be best to move it move it up to under the incident section. Have it be like "this is what is being reported" and "here is why thats being reported" MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure where else to put this, but the article includes a witness saying that the agents gave conflicting orders. I haven't heard conflicting orders in any of the videos of the incident. All I have heard is an agent saying 'get out of the car' and the victim's wife saying 'drive, baby, drive." Has anyone come across video evidence of conflicting orders? Clashwho (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

WaPo Source

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/08/video-ice-shooting-minneapolis/

This is a nice analysis and detailing I’ve read by WaPo. I’m not near my laptop at the moment, but thought it may be useful to ya’ll. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a video available from multiple angles. This editorial-style analysis relies on a single angle and doesn't present the full video until the end, after they have instructed the reader what to believe. A proper analysis would have relied video from multiple angles, especially as that other video clearly refutes the WaPo's angle here. Dr Fell (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it is likely to be sufficient video from a sufficient number of angles to do proper photogrammetry of the scene in the near future. — The Anome (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That’s a fair critique. R. G. Checkers ^talk 18:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Late to the party, but here's a gift link for anyone to view the article: https://wapo.st/3LzkKzu Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; it seems fairly neutral and limited to facts.

Remarkably enough, however, this source is being cited for the Wikivoice statement that "These claims [the ICE agent acted in self-defense and that Good attempted to run him over] 'have been widely debunked by eyewitnesses, by journalists' analysis of video footage, by local figures, and by Democratic Party lawmakers, the latter of whom have called for a criminal investigation."

It should be obvious that a hypothetical future claim of self defense can't be "debunked" in advance of criminal charges. Also, someone needs to check the difference between latter and last.

It's a shame that our encyclopedia is a battleground and constantly used to push POVs that run contrary to fact. Ekpyros (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it. It's absurd that people are saying "widely debunked" after only a few hours. I've seen the video. She wasn't aiming her car at any agents I could see, but she may have grazed an agent that was in front and to the left of her car as she turned. -- Veggies (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and let me go a little deeper because there's a slightly different point that I want to make. I've looked at the videos too, and I have my own personal opinion about it (about the same as yours), but none of our perspectives on what happened have any relevance at all. It isn't up to us to decide the case.

One thing that I think we should talk about more in the community is how some words are "success" words. To say that someone "debunked" something is not just to say that they disputed or critiqued it, but also makes the claim that they did so *successfully*. Very often such claims are not warranted in Wikipedia, and amount to taking sides in a dispute, when the right thing to do is to use a more neutral term that no one on either side of the dispute could possibly take issue with. So, thank you! Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"An excellent point. Trying to establish consensus about what are clearly unsettled and hotly contested questions is folly, and doubly so mere hours after the incident in question.

For example, the Washington Post article cited in our article was archived with the title "ICE agent was not in the vehicle’s path when he fired the fatal shots, video shows" and contains this sentence: "The agent who fired shots was not in the vehicle's path when he discharged his weapon."

That archived version is currently used in our article to support the identical Wikivoice statement (i.e., plagiarized word-for-word): "The agent who fired shots was not in the vehicle's path when he discharged his weapon.

In the hours since, that same Post article has been retitled "Video shows ICE agent in Minneapolis fired at driver as vehicle veered past him" and no longer contains the sentence that the agent was not in the vehicle's path—the one that is still copied, word-for-word, in our article. Instead, the article now states that: "As the vehicle moves forward, video shows, the agent moves out of the way and at nearly the same time fires his first shot."

Why the urgent need to claim that obviously unanswered questions have been "settled"—when the sources relied on (and in this case, simply copied and pasted into Wikivoice) are changing and revising cited material by the minute? Ekpyros (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There is discussion elsewhere about the phenomenon of dynamic copy (and indeed headlines). I'll just briefly address the "plagiarism" claim - often there are not many ways of stating a fact, and obsessive desire to reword can lead to inaccuracy. In this case I would have replaced "discharged his weapon" with "shot", and probably made a few other changes, but I don't think we should over-worry about relatively short pieces of text such as this. Moving on to wiki-voice, I'd certainly avoid using the word "veered" except as a direct quote, because even though the secondary source uses it, it carries unwarranted overtones of speed, which are not supported by the video. While we have to be ultra-careful about primary sources it would be foolish to use wiki-voice to convey something that is clearly not the case (in this case speed). Conversely unless there is some reliable source that claims he was in the vehicle's path at the time of shooting we should not suggest that he was, and even if reliable sources did claim that, we should definitely require extraordinary proof for such an extraordinary claim. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich!

• Perhaps we disagree about the need to avoid word-for-word cutting-and-pasting of copyrighted text without quotation marks in our articles, but I hardly think my concern evinces an "obsessive desire to reword", let alone that I've suggested introducing any "inaccuracy"—indeed, quite the opposite.
• I never suggested using the word "veered"—neither in Wiki- nor any other voice. I simply pointed out that the cribbed sentence is no longer even found in the cited source—and, additionally, that the title of that article, which was largely identical to that sentence, had also been replaced.
• I'm not sure I understand why stating that the agent was in the path of the vehicle would be any more extraordinary a claim than stating he wasn't. But if his location relative to the vehicle does require extraordinary proof, then I hope you agree that's all the more reason to be concerned about the issue I raised: the RS cited for our current article's description of that position no longer states what our article claims it does.

Ekpyros (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you even as much as you think. I'm more adding to what you said, and illustrating it. In the case of the slightly different copyright, as opposed to plagiarism, we, and many others, have gradually reduced the amount of text we are prepared to "risk" to a ridiculous extent. This has informed out overcautious approach to plagiarism too. But this is really a tangent.

It would be extraordinary to claim that anything we can see clearly in the video was not so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not too concerned about the changing nature of the article we cite. We have the archive to demonstrate we cited it correctly. Unless there is a note about the change indicating that it was a correction, we don't have to update our citation. The source remains accessible - and reliable unless we have reason to believe that the author has changed their opinion on the substance of the text.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC).

This is probably the closest place to put this: in Special:Diff/1331940736 I reduced unnecessary text in the background section, and inadvertently reinstated the word "widely" that had been removed two minutes previously. This was an oversight, and normally another editor who sees this kind accidental reversion occur would just fix it. Not Veggies, though, who has come to my talk page to accuse me of malicious intent. I thought people might like to know this in order to contextualize how they interact with this editor on this article talk page. For the record, I don't care either way whether the word "widely" appears here or not. Einsof (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

NYT Forensic Video Analysis

The NYT has released a forensic video analysis, pretty conclusively proving that the vehicle did not hit the ICE agent. Unlike the WaPo analysis mentioned in the above talk section, their analysis does deal with multiple angles. Video is currently not paywalled by NYT, so should be available to all to view. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeh. As obvious from the videos, she is driving around the agent with no intention to hit him, while he is shooting at her at the point-blank range. But trying to be objective, the guy probably simply followed his orders. Such forces have certain rules of engagement, probably just shooting on-spot everyone who did not understand their orders. But when different agents are giving conflicting orders, and the situation is erratic, someone is sure to be killed. The actual guilt is on people who deployed thousands of poorly trained agents without a good cause. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Pretty conclusively proving" is a stretch. The actual text of the video is far less conclusive, hedging by saying the agent "the agent is not being run over"—which is obvious—but doesn't state that he wasn't hit by the car, which would seem to be impossible to ascertain from the video being analyzed.

More importantly, you are incorrect in asserting that "[u]nlike the WaPo analysis mentioned in the above talk section, their analysis does [sic] deal with multiple angles." In fact, the Wapo piece expressly states: "Videos examined by The Post, including one shared on Truth Social by Trump, do not clearly show whether the agent is struck or how close the front of the vehicle comes to striking him." Included is a hyperlink that leads directly to the other relevant video that was included in the NYT "analysis". Ekpyros (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Where the official rules of engagement of ICE published somewhere? Or this is a state secret? I did not see them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I will WP:AGF in the hopes that your question is aimed at improving our encyclopedia. ROE are for the military; armed federal agents, of course, operate under use-of-force policies. Ekpyros (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Here you go, see 1-16.200: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

well I guess ice is DHS so itd be this : https://www.dhs.gov/publication/2023-update-department-policy-use-force EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Then, his action was clearly forbidden by such rules of engagement. Well, if the info about this officer is true, then his action was his personal reaction, after a previous incident when he tried to stop someone. If someone does not stop, just shot him on spot - that was apparently his own "rule of engagement". Let's see if he will be indicted and convicted for this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on the first point. For the second point, in the above discussion of the WaPo video analysis, someone criticized it for only looking at one video. My addition was meant to point out that the NYT analysis used multiple videos. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, and sure, I'm more than happy to agree the first is purely subjective. But what itsn't is the fact that the Post article did look at multiple angles, in the same relevant videos that the NYT did. Someone mischaracterizing it previously makes it even more imperative to be clear here. I would also kindly point out that, although of course they're being used in a figure of speech, both "preaching" and "choir" strike an unfortunate note in a Wikipedia discussion about a serious topic which seems to have brought out a great deal of political tribalism. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

From vid, what can definitely be said is the agent stayed on his feet and that the car was continuosly turning to the right, and not towards him when the shooting occurred. Maybe he lost his cool and panicked shot, but it didn't justify self defence if the car was clearly moving past him to his right. She wasn't trying to run over agent that Trump and ICE are unfairly trying hard to smear her as. Hence I suggest the article's (cause of death) to stop alleging its because she tried to ram and kill those agents as it's questionable and only gives the wrong impression that the ugly allegation is valid, and not because gov is trying to protect their own ass. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That is what the NYT analysis says, not what the video shows. But it's not on us to determine intent by the driver or if the shooting was justifiable as self-defense. Dr Fell (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Note I wasn't saying we should say the article say intent when an "independent" investigation hasn't done that. All we can say is what the car appeared to do, and the agent was standing throughout. But Yes, it's not up to us to say she was trying to kill the agent when the evidence is weak. Self defence also implies she tried to murder when that wasn't established. My issue was infobox questionably alleged her death is due to trying to ram against an agent. But it looks like someone else removed that premature & contentious label.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The NYT did a better job than WaPo, but the truck clearly drives at the agent at both 2:11 and 2:33. This is Orwellian, reject the evidence of your eyes type stuff. Should this be included in the article, it should be attributed and balanced with other analyses. Dr Fell (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We all have eyes. In the video, the car clearly wasn't travelling or accelerating in a straight line. If you are turning, obviously an agent near front will be at a brief sec - directly in front. It's disingenuous to imply she was also flooring it with the aim to reach him but was clearly turning the entire time to weave past him to his right. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It's clear in both videos, especially the second (which is possibly why WaPo didn't use it for its 'analysis') that the car was accelerating at the agent. The car turns only after the first shot is fired. The agent presumably assessed deadly force was being used against them per 18 USC §111(b) and responded. Tennessee v Garner affirms the agent's actions as being lawful. Dr Fell (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't "clear" at all. If you're trying to move around someone when there's not much space forward, you move forward briefly in order to start an arc. That's what I saw. From both videos, she was turning to the right, and if she had wanted to hit him, it would be too easy given the short distance and time. But the car wheel was def not even aligned towards his direction but consistently turning away from him in that short time span, so you can't say she was clearly attempting to run him over. So we have to agree to disagree. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The video released this afternoon shows the danger of trying to treat a Wikipedia article like a breaking news story with incomplete evidence, competing testimonies and rushed analyses. Today's video likely won't be the less, but it certainly makes clear the driver wasn't an innocent bystander who panicked. The passenger was taunting the agents, the driver was calm, the driver aimed, accelerated hard and clipped the agent. Dr Fell (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in that video showing that she "clipped the agent," as there is no image of the LH front corner of the car when he starts to shoot. The driver also did not "aim" for the officer who shot her, as is clear from the fact that her wheels were turned to the right (not the left, as they would have been if she'd been aiming for him). In fact, it's easy to see that she's turning the steering wheel to the right before he shoots. I have no idea what you're taking as evidence that she "accelerated hard." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

pretty conclusively proving Nothing of the sort. As editors, we should simply note in neutral words, the conclusions of the NYT's video analysis. If Fox News does an analysis with a different conclusion, we should note it as well. It's not up to us to say "definitively proving" or "debunking" things that come down to human calculations. Personally, the agent might have been grazed by the car and may have thought the driver was going to accelerate into him. Wait for more facts. -- Veggies (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We should also use discernment and our own judgement of sources. If a different source came to a different conclusion, unsupported by facts, we do not need to include it. The facts of this case are literally staring at you in the face. We don't need to appease "both sides" if one is just factually incorrect. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We report what all sides say, in a proportionate manner. We want to rely as much as possible on high quality sources, but Trump-McLauglin-Noem's claims are also notable, even though they have a poor reputation for factual accuracy. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That's sort of a flawed way to put it. We report what everyone notable says, yes, but we do not give undue weight to false statements. Yes, the government's claims are notable, but since they are, pardon my french, outright bullshit, we do not need to pretend that what they're saying is true, when it is so obviously not. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC) (Edit: sorry Jimmy) Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd sort of flip that on you: the fact that the federal government currently has a poor reputation for factual accuracy suggests against including their claims. The first goal here is to give the reader as accurate a picture of the situation as possible. All else being equal, including the claims of known liars tends to detract from that goal, so we should only do it if the claims themselves are a core part of the story and not just because they happen to be made by notable people. Loki (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

'the fact that the federal government currently has a poor reputation for factual accuracy' This isn't a fact. It's just a reflection of deep political divisions within the US and resultant cross-party, cross-ideological distrust. Dr Fell (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

lol Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is entirely wrong from top to bottom. Our own views of what happened here are not in any way relevant. Veggies has it right: neutrality demands of us that we do not get involved in disputes. We should write things that virtually no one could disagree with. We don't omit claims from reliable sources because we've concluded that they are wrong or mistaken. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We also, you must acknowledge, owe zero deference to the 'present' U.S. government placeholders, regardless of any pressure or pinch they attempt to put on the WMF, this site, yourself or others.

We will treat the article agnostic of domestic U.S. politics and any WMF-level influence or attemped influence. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

In no way is the article or this discussion remotely agnostic of domestic US politics. The struggle right now is wrest the article back towards encyclopaedic objectivity. Dr Fell (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have specifically said that we should not care about pressure from the US government or any other government. As I have always been 100% consistent about that sort of thing for the entire history of Wikipedia, I must assume good faith here that you simply weren't aware of that, rather than thinking that you aren't being very polite. I'm not wawre of any WMF-level influence or attempted influence. I am aware of me thanking good editors for making good edits to live up to our policies on NPOV. Do you disagree with me on the substance, or just making an (I'm sure unintentional because I'm assuming good faith that you don't know my views on things) attack on a straw man? Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Being honest, your arrival in a tense page often seems to raise temperatures, which we know is not your intent. You're just a regular editor with no extra juice beyond social standing; your WMF board position etc doesn't give you an iota of special sauce (just being blunt to cut through things). Some of us are a bit twitchy in this sort of context after the WMF laid down and gave in to the Portugeuse courts, and worries (justified or not) of possible WMF-level or other pressures from the government making noises about the WMF's charity/non-profit status.

I'm glad we seem to be on the position of even up to the (theoretical) moment government agents are trying to forcibly power down servers or drag WMF staff away in cuffs, we treat things like normal until the day we cannot edit. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I'd just like to note that I haven't done anything to cause anyone to be tense, and the only person who seemed to get tense and start talking wild talk about US government pressure (about the word "disputed" versus "refuted" or whatever?). Hopefully now that we've had this little chat,you'll relax a bit. :-) Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wales, I think they just want to make sure we are all on the same page/consensus. Not trying to be difficult or make a strawman. I don't think anyone was arguing that we now omit what the gov says. Just not give it so much weight as if it's the facts. I think largely everyone including both you and Poite person is actually aggressively agreeing with this. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I have immense respect for what you've done with Wikipedia. But I don't consider the current US Executive branch a reliable source. That's on me to deal with, I guess, and I'll recuse myself from any further discussion or edits on this specific subject. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The US Government is a reliable source for their own position. That doesn't mean they are accurate in everything they assert but if President Trump issues an executive order that says "The Sky is Green" we can say: "President Trump's executive order said the sky was green" and cite to the executive order. Remember (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. And we can also cite quite clearly the very authoritative people who would surely instantly object. In a funny hypothetical like this, I can imagine we might actually want to include a well-sourced photo of the sky. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you consider the US government a reliable source. That really is not the point at all. The point is, actual reliable sources are not jumping to the conclusion that the word "debunked" implies and therefore neither can we. We may have our personal opinions, and that's fine - I'm very much publicly on record that I don't think the current administration is trustworthy. But the fact that you and I agree on that does not relieve us of the responsibility, as Wikipedians, of not taking sides in the dispute. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We should also use discernment and our own judgement of sources. What? Who made that rule? Unless you're talking about fringe sources or sources already consensually found to be unreliable, we have to adhere to a neutral points of view. You sound very much like someone who wants to use Wikipedia to strike a blow in favor of your own presumptive views and favorite causes. We're not here to right great wrongs. -- Veggies (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless you're talking about fringe sources

One could make a compelling and policy-supported argument to depreciate certain transient current members of the U.S. government as WP:FRINGE, and any statement by anyone can be affixed with that hairshirt if what they're pushing is in fact FRINGE scale nonsense. Controlling law through threat of violence/hierarchal position entitles you to dick in terms of on-Wikipedia influence. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is your judgement informed by your politics is what you are using to determine what is and is not fringe. USG positions are inherently not fringe. It may be disputed or outright false, but it is not fringe. Dr Fell (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If Secretary Kennedy says the flu vaccine gives you ADHD, it doesn't matter if he puts it on golf-leaf Department letterhead made out of recycled Declarations of Independence.

Position/title means literally nothing in terms of "Is this WP:FRINGE?" and I say that as someone who thinks we abuse WP:FRINGE in a number of ways that I won't sidetrack us on here.

No one, and no structure, state or lower, gets deference on anything for who they are. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

But it's very important, in addition to acknowledging that what you say is true, to also note what that means. It doesn't mean that we can misrepresent history as it unfolds and not report on what he says and does because we think his views are fringe. It does mean that what he says should not be adopted and spoken in WikiVoice, but instead attributed. It also doesn't mean that people who disagree with him are automatically elevated in status, nor that we should take sides in their disputes. Neutrality is non-negotiable. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. What the chief executive of the US and his administration says in an official capacity is typically notable, at least to mention, even if it's counter-factual. If RFK Jr. were to say, "Drinking raw milk cures cancer" it would be notable to include in some relevant article on the current administration or on his bio article (as long as it was cited) along with reliable sources that say, "There is no evidence that drinking raw milk cures cancer." -- Veggies (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. It is almost never necessary or desirable for us to say things in WikiVoice that take sides in any dispute. The approach you recommend is policy since, well, since forever, and it's never a bad time to remind ourselves of it. It takes a level of real humility to remember: it isn't up to use to decide. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Having taken an hour off to breathe and think, you're obviously right. My bad/thanks for calling that out, @Jimbo Wales. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We're good. One of the biggest difficulties these days, and I'm trying to choose my words calmly here, is that a fair number of current top US government officials don't exactly have a Wikipedian's passion for truth and facts (or human rights or basic decency). Or, choosing my words less calmly, they are dangerous lying idiots. :). But, yeah, we're Wikipedians so we take an hour off to breathe and think and the world is better for it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

And the same can be said (calmly or less so) about some popular "news" sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Idk if this is the most central thread for discussing the lead's "debunked"/"scrutinized"/"disputed" sentence, but I'd throw "refuted" into the ring as (imo) the most appropriate word. "Scrutinized"/"disputed" convey zero authority, and "debunked" conveys 100% authority, but "refuted" is a decent medium Placeholderer (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"refuted" is a success word. It takes sides. It is not materially different from "debunked" in that sense. "Scrutinized" misses the point that many people have disputed the claims, so it isn't right. "refuted" is not a medium choice at all - it isn't about the "temperature" of the word - it's about the meaning of the word. Per Oxford to refuse is to "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false;" - to say 'refuted' is to say that the disputation is proven - that may be your view (and may be my view) but NPOV demands that we must not impose our own views on the subject matter.

Here's a useful tool for selecting a neutral word "Would any serious and reasonable person disagree with this characterization?" If so, then look for a more neutral term. Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd been working on a separate section to discuss the word choice. And it even had a ^[Humor] template. Curses!

The connotation in my head with "refuted" was that it didn't represent "disproof"/certainty, but that it conveyed some amount of substance being behind a "dispute". But I see that that's not, in fact, the meaning of "refute"—refuting something is "proving" it wrong. Silly me for thinking English having a bunch of synonyms for a word meant enabling nuance.

TLDR I stand corrected, "refuted" isn't appropriate either Placeholderer (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, all good. Thanks for a great discussion. Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Per Oxford to refuse is to "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false;" - to say 'refuted' is to say that the disputation is proven[emphasis added]

Is this a typo, or am I missing something, "refute" and "refuse" have different meanings? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Presumably he meant "refute" and "refuted," and "refuse" was a typo. That definition is for "refute." FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's my guess as well, dunno why I was questioning myself there. :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, 100%. Refuse is of course a completely different word. My apologies! Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Bellingcat's short forensic video analysis and animated map here. This can't be used as is, per WP:BLPSPS, but keep an eye out to see if they post the analysis at bellingcat.com. In the meantime, it may be useful additional info for the talk page (e.g., per the shooter videotaping with his phone is his other hand). Hopefully, some news organization will FOIA that video. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How is Bellingcat not /generally/ a fine WP:RS? From their own article: Bellingcat is a Netherlands-based investigative journalism group that specialises in fact-checking and open-source intelligence (OSINT).

See: WP:BELLINGCAT. What's the issue? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Bellingcat's publications are RSs, but Bluesky is like Twitter: self-published. Which is why I said "per WP:BLPSPS." FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

They're a fine RS on their own website. I agree that we should wait for them to publish on their own website and not cite their Bluesky account. Loki (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

They've posted both video analysises to YouTube now:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9C-ubG6wrQ
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_KdrX4hotA

Presumably still BLPRS (though Bellingcat is an excellent RS in general), so not arguing about their inclusion here or anything, just sharing the links. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

A news organization's Youtube channel is a reliable source, and is not covered by WP:SPS. See WP:RSPYT. Loki (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a potentially useful video analysis from CBS News, with a former Homeland Security Investigations officer who investigated use of force discussing how the ICE officer's actions were inconsistent with training as the video before/during/after the shooting plays. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Shooter's name

Per WP:BLPCRIME I don't think we should include the shooter's name. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I would normally agree for routine criminal cases. However, this appears to be an exception where the perpetrator's identity, or the absence of an immediate confirmed identity due to face covering and related issues, will itself become a notable subject discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. In that sense, I believe that the name and identification will not merely be an incidental details of the crime, but will become of the wider coverage and analysis. There is also a clear risk of a Streisand effect if the article avoids information that is already widely reported and contextualized elsewhere. Provided that coverage in reliable sources becomes substantial and careful, I think inclusion can be justified here. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe this will happen as well. But we should wait until it happens - Wikipedia should never lead. In just the last few months I've watched these debates on the Charlie Kirk killing and the Minnesota legislator killings. Better to get on top of it early. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Truer words. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Shooter’s name is being identified by press - Remember (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Remember - "is being" - yes. And soon enough we can name him, per BLPCRIME. But I don't think it's clear that we should name him yet. It can wait a few days, make sure they got it right. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right that we certainly *can* wait a few days if necesssary! In this particular case, I think it won't be more than a few hours at most, simply due to the extreme levels of scrutiny here by the media and public. But your careful approach is correct of course! Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any benefit to naming him. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Usually the bar has been charges, but it’s not clear there will be any criminal charges, federal or state, in this case. Mikewem (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid identifying the shooter for the time being. If we identify the shooter, we should note his prior involvement in a vehicle-ramming attack last year. Dr Fell (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure people will dredge up every aspect of his life, sooner or later. But it's critical that we get it right. Naming the wrong person can ruin their lives. Even implying that someone is the shooter (like giving details that actually apply to another person) can have that effect. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guettarda I was going to add the name since it has already been reported by multiple reliable sources, but after reading this discussion I suppose I agree it's fine to wait a day or two until a few more sources come out. I'm sure his photos, social media, and history will be posted all over the place within the next 24 hours either way.
— Tha†emoover†here (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

his name is very public what is gained by not mentioning it? I don't get the objection Inayity (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

We should most definitely not name the shooter the day his name has been identified. At the very least, we should wait to ensure there is SUSTAINED mention and check and see how prominent his identity becomes in reliable sources. Katzrockso (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda that we should not name someone whose identity is significantly in doubt the first day it's reported. Breaking news is often inaccurate and we cannot risk inaccurately accusing a living person of a crime. If he is the shooter he will eventually be formally accused in some kind of official capacity, and we can name him then. Loki (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see more dissementation of his name in more high-quality sources before we include it. I'm still concerned about possible inacurate identifcation at this point. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Minnesota Star Tribune; Fox 9 Minneapolis; 5 News in Minneapolis; The Independent; Newsweek; New York Magazine; Metro.co.uk; The Guardian; People; The Times; The Intercept; The New York Times; KTVU.

Is that not sufficient? Not really much more past that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we can include his name on the page already per multiple RS you mentioned. Even Vice President JD Vance himself said about very same officer "What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car, six months ago, 33 stiches in his leg," . Although Vance did not name him immediately, no one apparently intended to keep his name a secret. That would be impossible. Providing some info about the shooter (as was done by Vance) is actually important to understand his motifs and impulses. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Identifying the shooter is possibly not even covered by WP:BLPCIME because saying he is the shooter is not accusing him of a crime. The US Govt is saying the shooting was justified. Others contest that. That he shot Good is not a point of contention. What we can't say is that the shooter "murdered" Good, we can't say he acted illegally. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bondegezou The reputational damage, if they've named the wrong person exists whether everyone believe what he did was a crime or not. Enough people believe that this was murder that accusing someone of it wrongly is very risky. Trump, McLaughlin and Noem aren't exactly the most credible sources - just because they say this killing was justifiable doesn't mean much to an awful lot of people.

George Zimmerman is a murder in very many people's eyes, even thought he was acquitted of murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the outcome, the shooter here is going to be seen as a murderer for the rest of his life. So we have an obligation to make sure that stigma doesn't attach to the wrong person. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

NYT is attributing it to "two law enforcement officers with knowledge of the matter" at this point. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Very Polite Person it isn't really. Not with all of the sources just citing one another. With the Charlie Kirk shooting, the WSJ put out a very dubious story about engravings in the bullets that turned out not to be true. While NYT raised concerns about the veracity and the source, most others just repeated what the WSJ reported.

An official statement from someone, not an unnamed source and some sleuthing, is the standard we need. The potential to cause harm is too great. Guettarda (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We should acknowledge and hold fast to the idea that such a confirmation does not need to come from anyone on the Trump Federal level as a standard. State, county, local law in the area are sufficient. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like the sourcing is solid at least on the name. If it were one newspaper I'd maybe be cautious on the accuracy question, but going against this level of coverage would feel like I'd be putting personal opinion over sources.

I was curious and went to see how things were handled with Murder of George Floyd when I saw this recent news pop up (otherwise I generally stay out of anything remotely related to US politics, etc.). On the same day the article was created, Chauvin's name was included in the article as having knelt on his neck, etc. Maybe that example will help others wondering about WP:BLPCRIME. In this case, I'd also agree with @Bondegezou above that Wikipedia can't easily use wording like murder or acted illegally in some way at this time, but that he was the shooter seems to be "uncontroversial" in sources and wouldn't be a BLP issue when carefully described that way. Looking back at the original additions, text like in this version saying The ICE agent who shot Renee Good was identified by the Minnesota Star Tribune as Jonathan Ross. was being more than careful at that point I'd say in terms of text, so adding more sources to that working version would seem to thread any potential policy issues that have been brought up here. KoA (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@KoA I'm more thinking about the people who were detained after the shooting of Charlie Kirk. At least one of them was named, and continued to be the subject of threats and conspiracy theories long after it was clear he was uninvolved. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't that mainly because the police ended up charging him for things found in this phone? Trade (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"The ICE agent who shot Renee Good was identified by the Minnesota Star Tribune as Jonathan Ross" is a good sentence that I personally think should be restored. Dflovett (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Well since you said the name that either means that including the name in the article doesn't violate BLPCRIME or that you violated BLPCRIME by mentioning it here Trade (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. I didn't violate BLPCRIME. Dflovett (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is what the StarTribune, which broke the story is saying

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Thursday that the agent who killed Good was the same officer dragged by a suspect in Bloomington last June. Although Ross was not named in the 13-page indictment of the driver, he is identified in several court records filed in the case, including photo exhibits from the hospital. He is also listed by name as a witness. A law enforcement source, who is not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that [name] is the shooter.

Unnamed sources and extrapolation from court documents where he isn't actually named isn't really up to our standards. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The main point being we aren't the one making those extrapolations, but a generally reliable source (with what I'm assuming a good track-record of fact-checking). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

For something else, yet. But WP:BLPCRIME put a higher standard on what we say.

I'm not saying this as someone who wants to defend the shooter. I wouldn't be too broken up if the wrong ICE agent end up with the blame for this killing attached to them. But policy matters - not just for the people you agree with, but perhaps even more importantly for the people you disagree with. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see how adding the name improves the article. 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)
• WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIVACY gives us good reason to not include the name, the killing may very well be investigated as an unjustifiable homicide in the near future as the state government can file charges. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  You actually think this article could be renamed to "Unjustifiable homicide of Renée_Good" at some point? Trade (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  No, but "killing" could eventually be replaced by "murder" or "manslaughter" as has happened with other articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Very Polite Person this edit is an end-run around the ongoing discussion here. Please don't do that. Guettarda (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I dont see any naming of the alleged killer anywhere in that edit Trade (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Trade - did you read the discussion here? The problem is the potential harm done by identifying the wrong person. With or without the name, it's still pointing at the same person. Guettarda (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to take serious when his full name is already shown two times in the references Trade (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure now, but yeah, that could look like a BLPCRIME thing because I used the quote (habit I have for contentious topics to make edits more sticky--can't dispute what's verboten quoted).

So the quote had the name; @Guettarda is right for that. It would present in the Refs section with that.

But does this also mean we can't or should not use a source for any purpose if the shooter's name is in the article Title itself? Is that covered under BLPCRIME? There are already a ton of articles that include FIRSTNAME LASTNAME of the fellow; any that anyone deploys as a reference for anything visibly puts his name into References? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Very Polite Person WP:BLPCRIME says

For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Names or files of individuals identified as persons of interest should not be included in the article.

1. No one has been identified as the shooter. Kristi Noem said things about the shooter, in the same press conference where she accused Good of being a domestic terrorist. Noem was trying to make excuses for the shooter's action, and is not a reliable source for many reasons.
2. A reporter used that information to infer the identity the person Noem was referring to from court documents. The person isn't actually named in the court documents, but is in related documents.

The identity of the shooter is two steps removed from anyone who actually knew the identity. Odds of it being true are pretty good. But "pretty good" isn't enough to satisfy policy. Guettarda (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Protecting ICE agents is low on my priorities. But harm reduction matters even for people I don't like. Policy applies to everyone. Guettarda (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree. And I don't see how the name adds to the article anyhow, at least at this point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the nicest person on Earth and the biggest cunt on the block deserve the same basic politeness and rules application.

The quote is no bueno, but what about an otherwise fine RS that lists the figure in title? Does that make it interim invalid under BLP as a source? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Does a law enforcement agent qualify for WP:NPF? I'd argue that someone in a public facing role, who is (ostensibly) an agent of the public, is inherently a public figure. Not sure if there is precedent for or against this, though. Moreover, do we have a reason to doubt the Star-Tribune's reporting? I guess as a BLP concern, there's no harm in waiting a few days for it to be confirmed by a public official, but I'm seeing the name reported in numerous RS, including USA Today , NYT , The Guardian , The Intercept . 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a lawyer but: I believe it varies by state in the US. We should hold off on naming this person for now. If the identity is correct, and it remains a national issue: there will be more and in-depth coverage. I would also hesitate on considering anything a firm consensus as news stories continue to come out. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How long you wanna wait before reconsidering the issue? Trade (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

With the Vice President giving out biographic details on him in a press conference and news coverage already naming him: I imagine there will be quite a number "Who is X?" type stories by this weekend. (Again assuming the identity is correct and ICE stands behind his actions.) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Trade, Very Polite Person, I'm no longer opposed to naming him. I believe there's enough to call him a limited public figure. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii, are you comfortable adding the name in? Seems like there's a rough consensus here, and the "Who is X" articles have started to come out (, ). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

(On mobile) yes, since yesterday afternoon, multiple news organizations have published bios on him. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guettarda, @Trade, @Very Polite Person, I've added a minimal, attributed mention of his name per what I'm seeing as a rough consensus here . 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks like a good addition in terms of consensus. It looks like sources have been using language that they have confirmed Ross as the shooter. Looks like NPR/Minnesota's state public news has made a pretty clear statement too, NPR has confirmed Jonathan Ross is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis Wednesday. Ross has more than 10 years of experience as an ICE deportation officer and was selected for the special response team. KoA (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree his name should be mentioned in the body. I remain unsure if it should be included unattributed in the infobox because of BLPNAME concerns. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

So just add the cite to the infobox...? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this debate is now over. Aside from the name now being widely reported in international mainstream RS (AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, USA Today, Guardian, Independent), but now the shooter's father is talking to the press. Unlikely at this point that this identification is incorrect. Levivich (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Veracity of Trump's statments

@Placeholderer,

I know that it's important to keep lede sizes down, but I think that it's also important that if we include the president stating that it was self defense, we should note that his claims were not backed up by the evidence he provided.

I invite anyone else to lmk if I'm totally off base here. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're not wrong, POTUS shouldn't have more than one sentence in the lede as well. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The sentence about Trump's claims is immediately followed by a sentence saying, essentially, that anybody with eyes and a brain and who isn't an appendage of the federal police apparatus knows that Trump's claims aren't truthful. What exactly needs to be added beyond that? Einsof (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that a lack of support is communicated by using "claim" in the sentence claiming the agent acted in self-defense and that Good attempted to run him over. If it's really necessary we could say "claiming without evidence", but that's a construction that gets abused a lot so it's kind of lost its significance.

A full sentence saying there's no evidence is what I think is clearly excessive Placeholderer (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, there's an irritatingly guileless quality to statements like "claim without evidence", as if he just dropped his notecard full of evidence on his way to the podium or something. Einsof (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

In that case, disputed should be changed back to refuted. What's your qualm with it, @R. G. Checkers?MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There was some discussion about disputed vs refuted above Placeholderer (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

R. G. Checkers's repeated insertion of "scrutinized" is even worse, because that word doesn't even imply disagreement with the claim under examination. Totally inappropriate replacement. Einsof (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the current "disputed" langauge is most accurate. There is a government narrative (Good was trying to ram + shooting was self defense) that has been disputed by many analysis, democrats, witnesses, etc. If we say "refuted", its a word that indicates that disputes were thoroughly and unquestionably correct, and Wikipedia should not take a side in that way, at least not at this point. I don't even know if its correct to say the media/reliable sources have disputed, much less refuted, the self-defense claim. I haven't seen an article saying: "The shooting is undoubtely not justified" or "the claims of self defense are errenous". What many of y'all are doing is reading the NYT or Wapo or whoever say something like "the car appears in the videos to be pointing away from the officer" and then drawing an synthesized opinion that these sources are saying the shooting wasn't self-defense. I think that is innapropriate. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, 'dispute' is most accurate right now. Nothing has been proven or disproven; nothing has been refuted. The sentence immediately following the one with Mr Trump's defense is problematic, though. "These claims have been disputed by eyewitnesses, by journalists in analysis of video footage, by local figures, and by Democratic Party lawmakers, the latter of whom have called for a criminal investigation." It overweights the disputing parties and makes it seem as if all eyewitnesses, journalists, local figures and Democrats agree are aligned. That is certainly not the case. Do we even need narratives presented in the lead? Dr Fell (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. To pretend there is some sort of consensus about anything subjective at this point is absurd—the specifics of the incident are hotly disputed, and there is no reason our encyclopedia shouldn't simply say that. The rush to judgement about unanswered questions with huge legal implications, absent any adjudication and mere hours after the events, is pure folly. What is indisputably true is that there is currently significant dispute over what happened and why, including widely varying interpretations of video and other evidence. Ekpyros (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Fact is, someone was killed by the gov't, the gov't almost instantly announced conclusions about the shooting and the victim with no investigation, which multiple respected sources say don't make sense, and then denied the state investigation the ability to see the evidence. This was followed by the President and Vice-President making accusations against the victim, again with no evidence. As an encyclopedia, we must be careful (as careful as we wish the gov't was). But we must rely and document what reliable sources say. This is a BLP. Where is any evidence and what reliable sources state that the dead person was a left-wing radical domestic terrorist? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the federal government not a reliable source? Trade (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an encyclopedia should trust anything a government says without evidence? Is this any government? Various people in the US government disagree on this and just about everything else. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

To be super clear, disagreeing doesn't mean anything. The reason, for example, that so many right-wing sources end up deprecated here is because they constantly make up lies and bullshit. As many left-wing ones are prone to absurd hyperbole at times, but at least they tend to not just make up total fictions as a standard matter of course.

See my last comment. Just like anything, where, when, and how/contextually a government says something determines if it's RS. If North Korea says "The average height of our men is 8 foot tall, they all have prehensile penises like elephant trunks, and our women have telekinesis powers that will teach the West how to be properly Korean when we take over Earth in 2027..." We can certainly quote that the North Korean government said that. If they said, "The USA regularly kidnaps and eats at McDonalds 5000 North Koreans as part of a secret 1950s deal," we can again quote them as saying that. But we sure aren't gonna update an article like North Koreans to say their penises are all 6 foot long and able to function like an extra set of arms and hands.

Now, if they said that average daily rainfall in Pyongyang in August 2025 was 0.15 centimeters, we'd have to be assholes to push back against that, unless their equivalent of NOAA is prone to making up total nonsense.

Who, what, when, where all factor. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the federal government not a reliable source?

Which one? USA from January 2025-January 2026? USA from 1955-1987? The UK? When? North Korea? Russia? China? On what?

No country based on who they are or were is entitled to any extra lift or deference, and when, where and how things are communicated, in the context, and so on.

Would we hold CDC guidance in 2026 as valid RS if they put out a formal position that taking one (1) dosage ever of Prozac means your sperm will be mutant freaks with super ADHD? Just because they're in charge of some things by active deference of their residents? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This federal government is not a reliable source no. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's safe to say Trump described Renee Good as a "domestic terrorist" who tried to run over a man. And this characterisation has been disputed or questioned by multiple sources, showing events did not occur as he claimed. Journalists, officials, and the mayor have noted that Trump's claims is incorrect and making politically motivated denial. In other words, this clearly counts as disputing his claims that Good was as dangerous or criminal as he presented. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

crazy that we are applying WP:BLP to the shooter but not his victim simply because the victim is dead. disservice to her to in any way uses language that gives any credence to the lies from this administration when we have reliable sources saying evidence contradicts the admins propaganda. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not backed up by evidence, and there are reliable sources to back up his viewpoint.

Beyond the basic facts, the notion of culpability or innocence are viewpoints, both of which should receive significant coverage in the article. As it is written, this article is significantly biased. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)