Wikipedia

Talk:Killing of Renée Good/Archive 4

< Talk:Killing of Renée Good
Latest comment: 5 months ago by FactOrOpinion in topic Lead - internal bleeding
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 10 January 2026

Latest comment: 5 months ago99 comments49 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. Consensus reaffirmed that WP:PRIMARY sources do have a role in determining how a subject prefers her own name to be, and that MOS:IDENTITY likewise says that, all else being equal, we should go with how the subject prefers her own name to be. Many other good reasons were provided in support of the move, and for those who care, the move had numbers on its side as well. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 05:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Killing of Renee Good → Killing of Renée Good – Good consistently used "Renée" in her life. Examples include:

  • A poem written under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin" (2020).[1]
  • Her signature in her name change petition written as "Renée N. Macklin" (2023).
  • Paperwork used to register an LLC under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin Good" (2024).[2]
  • An Instagram profile made to promote said LLC used "Renée Good" (2024).[3]
  • Her Instagram profile uses the name "Renée Good" (updated 2025–2026).[4]

A bio by ODU also used the accented "Renée".[5] A number of sources have begun adopting the diacritic as well,[6][7][8][9][10] including The Washington Post.[11]

Though WP:SPNC applies to name changes, the Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic example seems similar enough to make the point that minor spelling variations, when consistent, should be followed.

References

  1. ↑ Macklin, Renée Nicole. "2020 Academy of American Poets Prize: On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs". poets.org. Academy of American Poets. Archived from the original on January 8, 2026. Retrieved January 8, 2026.
  2. ↑ "Articles of Organization: B. GOOD HANDYWORK LLC". Missouri Secretary of State. August 26, 2024. Retrieved January 9, 2026.
  3. ↑ "Becca & Renée Good". Instagram. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  4. ↑ "Renée Good". Instagram. Retrieved 8 January 2026.
  5. ↑ "ODU English Department's Post". Facebook. 1 April 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2026.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  6. ↑ "Everything We Know About the ICE Killing of Renée Nicole Good". Them. 8 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  7. ↑ Katie Langford (7 January 2026). "Renée Nicole Good, woman killed by ICE officer in Minneapolis, was from Colorado". The Denver Post. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  8. ↑ "What we know about Renée Good, the Colorado-born woman killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis". The Denver Post. 8 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  9. ↑ "Outrage and Mistrust Mount as Federal Agents Shoot Two People in Portland One Day After Renée Good's Killing". Mother Jones. 9 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  10. ↑ "JD Vance Claims Renée Good Had No Authority To Be Alive In First Place". The Onion. 9 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026. (satire)
  11. ↑ Molly Hennessy-Fiske; Annie Gowen; Praveena Somasundaram; Kyle Rempfer (10 January 2025). "How Renée Good ended up in a fatal encounter with ICE in Minneapolis". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2025.
Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC) (edited 00:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 09:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't see that in the source. It briefly discusses her petition to change her last name. The article uses "Renee" (no diacritic) throughout, but makes no explicit claim as to the proper spelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Articles on people don't have to use their legal name, see WP:ON Shocksingularity (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support - Her name, her choice, her gravestone. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. We should spell the name correctly. The incorrect spelling is going to be a common mistake and should be retained as a redirect so that nobody has any problem finding the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support - The least we can do is spell her name as she wished. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support - per proposal. Not sure why this was changed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    I moved it back because at Talk:Killing of Renee Good/Archive 1#Renee or Renée, 1 editor supported the change and 5 editors didn't (including me). Levivich (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    Just to be absolutely clear on the order here given how many moves there have been:
    So we did use Renee Good before it got changed to Renée Good. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support move. As long as a redirect is left, this won't create any problems finding the article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Einsof and User:Buster7, and maintain a redirect since not everyone has a 'é' character on their computer. Casspedia (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support and redirect as per User:Casspedia and as per the WP:SPNC note on diacritics under minor spelling variations. Indigopari (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support - She uses the diacritic frequently, as seen in some of her poems. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom
    CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean Oppose: While I would prefer a move, I do have to concede that what Levivich has said so far is more binding to me. To my current understanding, the majority of the first five sources as presented above are not tied to reliable sources, but instead were found via internet searching. These range from the government of Missouri via the websites for the Missouri Court system and the Missouri Secretary of State to the social media website of Instagram and Facebook with the Academy of American Poets website in the middle of this. Without a connection from reliable sources, this fits into original research. So far as I know, the only one of these that reliable sources have mentioned or linked to is the Academy of American Poets website as done by sources such as The Minnesota Star Tribune. With that being the only connection so far that seems to be usable, I do not see where it prevails over Currently, the only reason I am leaning to oppose that is left is DIACRITICS saying to (...) follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (...) when the majority of reliable sources so far have excluded the accent.
    The only policy so far that has been put forward to move the article is that SPNC says that For minor spelling variations (...) when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed[,] which does include diacritics. I am currently not convinced that the criteria of "consistent and unambiguous" has been met in this situation, but I have been wrong once so far in this discussion and would be fine with being wrong again. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC) (Amended at 12:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC). Yes, I probably could have saved more from the first portion, but better to just cut to the only issues left for me.)
  • Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only relevant policy is that we use the name used by the majority of sources and that is clearly overwhelmingly her legal name. There is no WP policy that we use her preference (even if we could be certain what that was in her 'everyday' life). I fully understand the impulse to 'memorialise' her in the way she might have chosen, but that isn't our function. Respect for the reader also matters and unless/until the majority of sources use the accented form, we should not do so either.Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose slightly reluctantly per WP:COMMONNAME. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC).
  • Support - I know some US beaucratic gov filing system don't use diacritics (ASCII system), which can explain why the accent is sometimes omitted in documents or reporting. But the subject herself uses the accented spelling publicly, indicating this is her preferred form. As I have now seen a mix of reliable sources that uses both spellings as valid - given that, it's appropriate to follow the subject's own preferred usage.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per 1) reliable sources use both spellings 2) subject's preferred usage 3) redirects mean searching either way gets to article.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    One other thought. I've edited articles that were fast breaking news, and the solid sources we normally refer to had the name totally wrong. WP repeated the error (must use the most common name found in reliable sources) and other sources picked it up by referencing WP (since we are generally an accurate summation of other sources). I argued that the legal name used in the official documents should have priority over the name used in the mass media. And continuing to use the name that, at the time was most commonly used, actually spread that misinformation. I suggest that when a few highly valued sources show the correct name, we do not still need to choose the most commonly found mistaken name.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DIACRITICS, as the overwhelming majority of reliable English-language sources consistently use "Renee" without the diacritic. The usage of the é on social media profiles has no reliable source backing it up she used it "in real life". I use an abbreviated name on my social medias for instance. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. As Objective3000 said, we should at least use the name she preferred. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Shocksingularity (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and per the arguments made by Einsof and Buster7 above. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. Listen to the woman — which works nicely in this case. Thanks to all for such diligent concern. Left Central (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Levivich. COMMONNAME and DIACRITICS demands us to use reliable sources as our guide, and the overwhelming amount of reliable sources use Renee rather than Renée. R. G. Checkers talk 03:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support as the ongoing use of Renee over Renée can be explained by the inconsistent usage of accents in English-language sources. Regardless, the accent version is still used by reliable sources and readers will be able to find the article easily even if they don't use the accent as long as a redirect is left. Per Bobsd and Einsof arguments. Raskuly (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    I don't expect anyone to seriously consider deleting either version as a redirect, especially since they have both been used as article titles for over 24 hours each. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support In my opinion, news reporters are not more reliable source for a person's name than the person herself. Surely she knew her own name. Self published sources are absolutely fine for topics for which we have no reason to doubt per WP:BLPSELFPUB
—CodeHydro 20:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per  • Bobsd •  . WidgetKid chat me 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per the proposal, and per the arguments made by Einsof and Buster7 above. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 09:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the analysis by the nom (and others) that the guidance at WP:SPNC can reasonably be extended to this situation. The BLP guidance at WP:DOBCONFLICT is in the same spirit, allowing for the subject's own social media to be used as a source for their full date of birth if there is no reason to doubt it. And there are similar allowances to use the subject as as a source at WP:BLPSELFPUB. Here we have some inconsistency in reliable secondary sources that would *usually* prevail in straightforward COMMONNAME discussions and consistent usage by the subject in primary sources and in their own writing. The discrepancies in secondary sources are well-explained by common spelling conventions, style guides, technical limitations (although these are relatively minimal in 2026), and frank ignorance or sloppiness on the part of editors. We have guidance that explicitly allows such sources to be used for things like diacritics in personal names. There is no reason to doubt that she used an accent and certainly no reason to believe that the press is more reliable than the subject for this information. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    I don't understand this WP:SPNC argument. The name change petition does not change "Renee" to "Renée". Both the pre- and post-change versions are "Renee," without the diacritic--it's right there on the form. She uses the accent mark in one handwritten line, but the rest of the form doesn't use the accent mark. The Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic example in SPNC says when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, but since the name change petition isn't consistent (it uses both "Renee" and "Renée"), and since the subject didn't change her first name... how does any of SPNC apply here? It seems like people mean "go with WP:ABOUTSELF over WP:RS," but that has nothing to do with SPNC (nor is that in any other policy/guideline, which say go with RS). Levivich (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
She uses the accent mark in one handwritten line, but the rest of the form doesn't use the accent mark. Right, but that could be due to technical limitations and/or bureaucratic apathy. When given the space to write out her own name, she used the accent. Einsof (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, but that has nothing to do with WP:SPNC, right? You agree that she didn't change her name from "Renee" to "Renée", right? The only relevance of the name change petition is that it shows that she used the diacritic when she handwrote her name on that form. The argument is that because she used the diacritic, we should use the diacritic... right? But that argument has nothing whatsoever to do with SPNC, right? That she changed her last name doesn't have any bearing on how we should write her first name... right? Levivich (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm confused by your position. SPNC dictates
"For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, transliteration, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed:
Example: Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic
Her poet's award was using Renée, and that was in 2020
So we should be using Renée, correct? Let's face it, many many people don't even know how to generate the é (ALT+ 0233) so you can bet that many sources just don't care to be accurate.
 • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
What I said, very much along the lines of what others have said, is that the guidance at WP:SPNC can reasonably be extended to this situation. What I mean is that we have guidance at SPNC and a variety of places that explicitly permit or even suggest following a subject’s usage for certain personal details including the use of diacritics in personal names. I’m actually not focused on the name change petition as evidence of a name in support for following the SPNC guidance. What I am saying is this: We have established guidance for a variety of similar situations, even if they don’t apply to every detail of this case. I find this and the other evidence and arguments more than sufficient to support a change. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Put another way: The totality of the guidance at SPNC, ABOUTSELF, DOBCONFLICT, etc. supports ‘Renée’. The SPNC guidance is especially relevant because it addresses the use diacritics in personal names. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae - sorry for the confusion. My comment was actually addressing @Levivich's 19:46, 13 January 2026 reply. You and I are on the same page and SUPPORT the move.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
@Bobsd Oh yes, I completely understood that. And thank you for your contributions, I agree with your assessment. I was also replying to Levivich, and then I replied to myself as a sort of amendment. So, sorry for any confusion I caused! —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
"Extending" a guideline that is about something inapplicable (name changes) in order to apply it in direct contradiction to other policies and guidelines that are directly applicable (eg WP:DIACRITIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN, WP:BLPPRIMARY). How is this not cherry picking policies? Like, "this policy says what I think should be the outcome, so let's apply it to a situation where it doesn't apply, and let's ignore the other policies and guidelines that do apply but say the opposite of what I think should be the outcome." I don't see the logic in extending SPNC to apply here. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
It's not cherry picking. It's a reasonable interpretation of policies and guidelines for similar situations along with a dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. Your interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion: We ignore the subject's personal usage of diacritics if they use them their entire life but if they suddenly start using them one day we follow suit. And again, if we can use a subject's social media for uncontroversial birth dates and other personal information there is no reason diacritics warrant a special exclusion. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
But that's an argument against the policies. The reason to follow the sources is because that's what the policies say to do. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
I understand that is your interpretation of policy. Agree to disagree. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Again, please note that WP:BLPPRIMARY is NOT applicable here. The subject is not a living person. WP:PRIMARY applies instead. —grolltech(talk) 11:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
BLP applies to recently deceased people, see WP:BDP. Levivich (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. Thanks for that. —grolltech(talk) 16:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Death, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Women, WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Women in Red, WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Minnesota have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 09:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the most relevant guidelines, MOS:IDENTITY, hasn't been cited in this move discussion at all. In my opinion, it's more relevant than WP:SPNC, considering that a name change isn't in play here per Levivich. MOS:IDENTITY says this: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. In other words, self-published sources can be used, but don't automatically take precedence over all other reliable sources. The subject's preference can be taken into account, but only when there isn't a clear WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, it is undisputed that reliable sources overwhelmingly use "Renee" over "Renée". For similar reasons, the president's article is at Donald Trump (the common name), not Donald J. Trump (the subject's preference).
    While these aren't self-published sources, I think it's worth noting that neither Good's wife nor her family use the accent. Malerisch (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Renée is a French name and per WP:SPNC: For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, transliteration, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed. Since we have a self-published source, how some monolingual journalists—who neither know nor care how to type diacritics—write her name is irrelevant. Her signature also includes an acute accent. Thibaut (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
    These sorts of remarks towards journalists are unhelpful; it's much more likely that journalists aren't using the accent because her legal name doesn't include an accent. The Renée article notes that it can be spelled without an accent in non-French-speaking countries. Why don't Le Monde or Le Figaro use the accent then? Malerisch (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. Who are the reliable sources in this context: the journalists who appear to be leaving out the diacritic in this woman's name; or the woman herself who included it when she wrote her own name by hand, on her name change petition? Even discounting that document, her own publication (as a poet) and her social media confirms her use of the diacritic. There's a reason WP:ABOUTSELF allows self-published sources for noncontroversial facts and there's no way including a diacritic in her first name can reasonably be thought of as controversial. It's far more likely that journalists simply got this wrong. Bonus points to The Onion though for getting it right. --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support The Washington Post is well-established, and it has begun using the diacritic above the 'e'. Given this, and given the various instances in which Good used the accent, the diacritic should be used in the title. So, yes, move. Dogru144 (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • This is a subtle one. Her preferred name is Renée, while the majority of sources use Renee. We have established policies for situations like this, and we always use the name that the majority of sources use. We explicitly don't use the legal or official name, or even the name we emotionally want to use because we feel it's the right and human thing to do, if the majority of reliable sources are using a different name. Why is that? It's because we are the summary of general human knowledge: we do not create content or establish a path not yet clearly trodden. Why don't we do that? Because of our immense influence. If we change to Renée, then we know that is the name others will start to use, and we are starting to change the path. We are no longer mapping it, we are creating it, or at least lending our huge shoulder to assist in creating it. And we mustn't do that. We must resist abusing our power, even when we feel it is for the most humane of reasons. The usual course of action in these cases, and the one we should follow, is to wait until the majority of reliable sources are saying Renée. Then we can map that name change with honesty, and the awareness that we didn't force the issue. The name change came about naturally. Of course there is also the possibility that the majority will continue to use Renee, and we can be fine about that as well, because we didn't jump the gun, and unnaturally cause the name change. What we also tend to do in cases like this, is to make a note at the start of the article that she published poetry under the name Renée, and that some reliable sources are starting to use that spelling. So, despite our humane instincts to do the right thing and give her the spelling that she preferred, we need to step back and remember our purpose. So - Oppose a name change, but note in the article her preferred spelling. SilkTork (talk)
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.

References

  1. ↑ "ICE shooting victim Renee Nicole Good's award-winning poem ended on a poignant note". The Independent. Retrieved 11 January 2026.
  2. ↑ "Photo doesn't show Renee Nicole Good, Minneapolis resident killed by ICE agent". Snopes. Retrieved 11 January 2026.
  3. ↑ "ICE killing of Renee Good leaves son orphaned and former KC neighbors reeling". The Kansas City Star.
  4. 1 2 See e.g., Olivia Johnson; Dillon Seckington (7 January 2026). "SUV involved in Minneapolis ICE shooting registered in Kansas City, Missouri: DOR". FOX4KC. Retrieved 10 January 2026. According to business records from the Missouri Secretary of State, Good has a registered maintenance company in Kansas City, Missouri called 'B.Good Handywork' under the name Renée Nicole Macklin Good. The LLC was filed in the summer of 2024.
  5. ↑ Cite error: The named reference IG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Archive bot still not working

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone know how to fix it? Retention is set to 3 days which clearly isn't working still. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was working as per the settings. Yes retention is 3 days but it was also set to leave 12 threads. (We have more than 12 now but assume these are new threads and maybe also an interaction of other stuff like pinned threads which I don't know how they interact with min threads.) 12 seems excessive so I've reduced it to 3. We'd need to wait until it the bot next runs for archival which I think may be up to 24 hours or so. And I'd note that the lead photo thread has been pinned and so won't be archived until 26 January unless someone changes it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
It did archive four times in the last five days. Also, I have the lead photo thread pinned as I was waiting for seven days since the last reply before sending it to WP:CR. (I believe that the 26th was what the template was showing or something similar as I didn't specifically pick that date. Quick edit: Ah, actually I just set it for 10 days out, which is why the time and date seemed random to me. The template did the math and apparently converted it to 3:04 (UTC) on the 26th. (Although, it shows on my end that it was set for 02:42 UTC, so 22 minutes were added somewhere.)) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
In what regards? It ran at ~22:00 UTC on the 15th, ~21:30 on the 16th, ~21:30 on the 17th, and ~22:00 on the 19th (or today). It should likely run at around 21:45 on the 20th, which is a bit more than 19 hours after this reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I think the OP was confused because it left a bunch of threads which weren't pinned and hadn't been replied to in way more than 3 days. The reason is surely as I noted above because it also had the setting of leaving 12 threads which I now modified but you might miss this if you don't look carefully. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that the issue was that discussions that should have been archived were not being archived instead of something like discussions are being archived to soon or a separate issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A Useful Source

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/jonathan-ross-ice-officer-renee-good-b2902204.html

This provides some useful information on the background of Jonathan Ross that isn't included in the article. If anyone wants to do the work of incorporating this into the article, please do so. Bill Heller (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

this article is about Good's death, not Ross' biography EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
It's important because of the discourse around ERO training, for example by Cory Booker, which, while important, isn't the primary issue with Ross's actual shooting of Good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC).
His biography is relevant because it informs what led him to the Renee Good. I put the link there last night at 1 am eastern US time because I was too tired to incorporate the source it into the article. I will do that now.
Super Goku: There's nothing about the killer's personal life in the article. There are a total of three short paragraphs about the killer. We need some more context about his history and what drove him to make the decision to kill this woman. We know he's been married twice. Does he have kids? There were claims made by politicians that he was injured in a prior incident. Can we verify the veracity of these claims with WP:RS? We're missing a lot here from what I can tell. Bill Heller (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I have seen the addition. I don't like it, but you might be right that we should include it. It does seem that it is complying with any concerns I would have regarding WP:BLPNAME. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Seems most of it is already in the article. We cover that he was in the Indiana National Guard, that he was deployed during the Iraq War, that he was with the US Border Patrol, and that he got a job with ICE and was specifically assigned to the Enforcement and Removal Operations unit when the shooting took place. What is useful that isn't currently in the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

ICE shooting in North Minneapolis

Latest comment: 5 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion

This probably deserves a mention somewhere Trade (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone did mentioned it. Is there another article we can use to describe the second shooting in depth? Doesn't have to be it's own article Trade (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
List of shootings by U.S. immigration agents in the second Trump administration. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC).
I can see we are still doing the whole calling pepper spray/tear gas "chemical weapons" thing. Was this agreed upon somewhere? The discussion above is only for this specific article Trade (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
I edited to 'chemical agents' which is what the NYT used in this case. Certainly no agreement to use 'chemical weapons' and the edit Rich Farmbrough was referring to was made by the same editor who restarted the chemical weapon discussion on this page. I do not understand their enthusiasm for the term. Dr Fell (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
FWIW. Yesterdays WSJ used tear gas, eye irritant, gas cloud and chemical irritant to describe. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
All more precise than 'chemical weapons.' The article should be following RS consensus on terminology and aim to provide clarity for the reader. Dr Fell (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Almost like the authors are constantly changing terminology to shift the tone of the article Trade (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
In what sense are they not chemical weapons? This looks like an attempt to downplay the use of such weapons against civilians within the USA. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
You mean the ones that have been standard issued to riot police for the last 50 years Trade (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, riot police use chemical weapons. I don't think that's a controversial position, which is why I'm puzzled by this attempt to remove the term in this context. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Well, if there nothing to downplay because its standard issued equipment then you should have no issue in calling it by its actual name as used on Wikipedia Trade (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
This feels like some kind of a gotcha, but I think you'll need to be specific. We're talking about tear gas and pepper spray, which are, in ordinary language, chemical weapons - they are literally weapons whose effect is chemical rather than, for example, kinetic. If you are arguing that we should not describe them as such, can you explain your rationale? If that's not what you're arguing, what are you arguing? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
It's more that in common parlance (at least in my experience reading reporting in the NYT among other sources), use of the term chemical weapons brings to mind chemical warfare ala WWI. Referring to tear gas, CS gas, or pepper spray as chemical weapons, although technically correct, brings to mind a totally different connotation than if the actual substances used were spelled out specifically. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
I am a bit late to this, but while I was looking for something else I did find a match for the wording of chemical weapons: Protesters have demanded that police officers even arrest federal agents on charges of using excessive force. Moran said that some things that ICE agents have done, “like the deployment of chemical weapons intentionally in people’s faces, which is a violation of DHS’ own policies,” could be deemed an assault. In this particular situation, it is a quote from "Rachel Moran, an expert on police accountability at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis." Hopefully this helps in some way. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Kindly do not baselessly cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Dr Fell (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm not doing so baselessly; your own position is far from neutral. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
We already downplayed it once we started to call the article killing instead of murder Trade (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Are you saying using the term "Chemical weapons" is downplaying? Or the reverse? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC).

Pre-shooting timeline of orders given to Good

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do we have any sources that spell out what "orders" were given to Good in the 10-15 seconds before the shooting, and in what EXACT order of statements/commands given to her? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no transcripts of what happened outside of the 911 calls. Most sources talking about orders seem to focus on the order for her to get out of the vehicle, though this one specifically does also mention "One witness reported that Good was ordered to leave the scene before being told to get out of her SUV" near the end. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Unneeded extra source for pepper spray quote

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Mikewem: Why do we need another source for the pepper spray quote? We already have one, and the one you added here is useless for verifiability because it only contains about half of the quote. Now someone who wants to verify the quote needs to look up both sources and figure out which one actually supports the material. It just adds noise and clutter. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to this resource. I've begun to integrate it in the Analysis section. Einsof (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The whole section was deleted outright with an edit summary that said it lacked coverage, so I added coverage. This is a quote within a quote we’re talking about. I think it’s reasonable to deal with the agent’s reported quote as not intrinsically linked to the civilian’s framing quote, and to source it independently of the framing quote. It may even make sense to re-write our presentation of this incident as an amalgamation of the 3 sources, rather than solely base it on the presentation of one local source (mpr news). Mikewem (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but each quote should be followed by a source citation that directly supports that quote. See MOS:QUOTE. Discussion as to whether that section belongs in the article should take place here on the talk page rather than in the edit summaries. Simply piling on extra source citations doesn't give the section any more weight. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

“Criminal investigation” in lead

Latest comment: 5 months ago19 comments5 people in discussion

We say some of whom have called for a criminal investigation in reference to Democratic lawmakers, but we only have sourcing for one single lawmaker, Minority Leader Jeffries. We do have sourcing for “some” lawmakers calling for “an investigation”. Should we remove “some of whom” from the lead and attribute solely to Jeffries? Or should we remove “criminal” from the lead and attribute to some? Mikewem (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I would rather attribute it to Jeffries. Einsof (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I’ll institute that as a stop-gap while letting discussion continue. The current wording is a BLP vio Mikewem (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Looking back, that portion comes from the 7th and the 10th, with there being edits between those dates that no longer existed in the version quoted above.
On the 7th, R. G. Checkers added the portion about an investigation by changing "The shooting was defended by federal officials and was condemned by local politicians" to "The shooting has been defended by President Donald Trump and federal officials, while local politicians have condemned it and Democratic lawmakers have called for a criminal investigation." From there, there were multiple edits over the next 48 hours: Feeglgeef removed the local politicians part and moved part of the sentence to the following sentence regarding protests; Pbritti adjusted the sentence it was in; Mewnst made significant changes that added the local figures part and split the sentence off from the protest one; Pave Paws added a comma; and Einsof made the final edit on the 8th with significant changes, with the wording now at "These claims have been widely disputed 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." among other changes to that sentence. (Hopeful that I didn't miss an edit.)
Focusing on just the criminal investigation part for the rest of this, there were three more edits: Someone removed the word "by" from the sentence, but Who Wrote That does not indicate who did so; On the 9th, Hiplibrarianship changed the wording to "Democratic Party lawmakers, with the latter having called for a criminal investigation"; and on the 10th, TE(æ)A,ea. changed the wording to "some of whom have called for a criminal investigation" with the edit summary saying: (...) changing "who called" to "some of whom" as it is specific members (listed later in article).
And that is how we got to here. I will note that there might be a misunderstanding in play as the article mentioned the following at the time in the Government response section: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demanded a criminal investigation, with other Democrats in Congress, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also calling for investigations. It isn't clear from that sentence if the investigations being mentioned in the second half of the sentence include or exclude criminal investigations while the source says that Schumer called for a "full investigation" and thus not necessarily a criminal one. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
This is also why I insisted on naming Hakeem Jeffries by his official title as House Minority Leader when I edited that section close to 2 weeks ago now, when @Einsof: had originally used the wording “opposition leader”, saying that we “should be writing for an international audience who doesn’t know the minutiae of the US government” or something to that effect in a dummied out edit note after their preferred wording.
While it is clear now that most people disagree with that, since my wording was kept for this long, I still want to point out the futility of attempting to “internationalize” the titles of the officials and organizations involved in this article. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 09:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
This is a discussion about the phrase "criminal investigation". If insufficiently US-centric language (from more than a week ago that was already removed) continues to bother you, shouldn't that discussion happen somewhere else, not here...? Einsof (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I did bring up that part of the text in the last paragraph, given that I felt it was relevant per TE(æ)A,ea.'s edit summary. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
In fairness, I’m kind of surprised that I can’t find a single other Dem lawmaker using Jeffries’ exact phrase. Plural for criminal was and is a reasonable assumption to make. There very likely may be plural lawmakers, I just can’t find any. Mikewem (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I brought it up because of the last paragraph of Super Goku's comment as he mentions above. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The last paragraph of that comment does not use or allude to the phrase "opposition leader"...? Einsof (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
More the wording of that last paragraph in properly referring to Jeffries as the House Minority Leader. Perhaps pinging you was a mistake at 4am, my bad. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
We either have a source with Schumer (or any one additional Dem lawmaker) using the word “criminal” or we do not. If we find a source for more than one use of the word “criminal”, then of course we go with that. Mikewem (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Ro Khanna said, "That ICE agent needs to be arrested, and he needs to be prosecuted. He needs to be put on trial", which is a number of steps beyond criminal investigation. Could support the phrase "criminal proceedings". Einsof (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
That satisfies me for “some of whom have called for criminal proceedings” Mikewem (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I concur - that covers it, I think. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I added Khanna's statement in the body so it can be supported in the lede. As for this edit, the word "organ" has a well-established usage in politics (e.g., this law review article, "The Organs of U.S. Foreign Affairs") and is convenient for referring to, well, organs of the Trump administration without having to try to clumsily assort them into agencies, offices, branches, etc. Einsof (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I am aware of the relevant meaning of 'organ'; however, I don't feel that the edit in question added anything to the clarity of the article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Could we say “Trump administration accounts of the shooting have been contested by …”? It does seem to be the case that the early characterizations from the administration shaped the boundaries of the wider discourse. Mikewem (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
That's OK. I would prefer something that used the active voice and didn't use 'Trump administration' as a quasi-adjective, but it's usable. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Bari??

Latest comment: 5 months ago43 comments10 people in discussion

I removed the following as completely, totally irrelevant to the killing of Renee Good:

CBS staffers later leaked to the Guardian that the report on the internal bleeding drew skepticism within the CBS newsroom, but was received with great interest by chief editor Bari Weiss. [1]

How... just someone please explain how in the world CBS's internal newsroom drama is in any way deserving of being included in an article about someone shooting Renee Good. Red Slash 20:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  1. ↑ Barr, Jeremy (January 15, 2026). "CBS News report on ICE officer's injuries drew 'huge internal concern'". The Guardian.
I fixed the heading issue. Someone way up the page had left some wikicode that should have been quoted in plaintext. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC).
Hmm. I wonder if this is tied to the notice I received of 15 new topics on this talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Doubtlessly it is. @Rich Farmbrough is a hero. Red Slash 04:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
The coverage and treatment of the shooting is as important as the shooting itself. There are a tapestry of stories that interweave with this one, including the weaponization (and general behaviour) of ICE, issues around free speech, presumption of regularity (in the broad sense), trust in the media, the purchase of CBS by the Ellison clan, the impact of 21st century tech billionaires on the political landscape, politicization of the DOJ, removal of government oversight mechanisms, qualified immunity, guilt by association, Barnes v. Felix, "reasonable officer" and on and on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC).
The article on the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales includes a section on what news outlets did following Diana's death, nascent internet coverage, and criticism of the press including a controversy about—you guessed it—CBS. If sources say it's relevant, it's relevant. Jade Ten (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Members of a news organization when to a competing organizations to mention that their report had drawn concern behind the scenes, but was still published. “There was big internal dissension about the ‘internal bleeding’ report here last night,” the CBS News staffer, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said. “It was viewed as a thinly veiled, anonymous leak by [the Trump administration] to someone who’d carry it online.” “Felt to many here like we were carrying water for the admin’s justifying of the shooting to keep our access to our sources,” said a second network staffer, who was also not authorized to comment. (EM) The article mentions that since Weiss, there have been claims of favoritism towards the administration. (Of which, that likely isn't going to go away given that there is the article this weekend of "Cheek kisses between Bari Weiss and Donald Trump" in The Independent.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that passage you excerpted and the material on Weiss are why I wrote the sentence the way I did. I tried to keep it short, but if it is not clear as-is, perhaps it should be expanded. Einsof (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
I removed the passage about the Gdn reporting (unnamed) sources within CBS claiming that there had been scepticism within CBS about the 'internal bleeding' story and disagreement about how/whether to run it. My removal was reverted here on the grounds that "all of the responding editors on the talk page section agree that the CBS leak is on-topic", which I find a bit odd as the first comment above by User:Red Slash is How... just someone please explain how in the world CBS's internal newsroom drama is in any way deserving of being included in an article about someone shooting Renee Good? I don't see Red Slash's question being answered anywhere here apart from in generalities. This isn't a story about the killing of Good nor even about coverage of the killing. It is one paper writing about 'leaks' about another papers 'backroom disagreements' about how/whether the second paper should cover one detail of coverage of the killing. Even if the story is 100% true, so what?
I myself posted the Gdn story on this talk page shortly after it was published, simply because I thought other editors might be interested, but consider the 'leak story' wholly off-topic. Newsroom editors argue about whether and how to cover stories, it's what they do, just as we do. The 'leak' is effectively tittle-tattle (gossip) which would be immediately dismissed were it not for the ongoing drama about who now heads CBS and whether they are incompetent and/or partisan. It COULD POSSIBLY be relevant to a page about CBS, but IMO has no relevance to this page. If CBS editors were highly sceptical about the 'internal bleeding' story, well so were many editors here and so probably was anyone who had already formed an opinion about the US administration's ability/willingness to be honest about this killing.
IMO it detracts from the coverage of the killing, rather than enhances it and should be removed.Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
The 'leak' is effectively tittle-tattle (gossip) which would be immediately dismissed were it not for the ongoing drama about who now heads CBS and whether they are incompetent and/or partisan. So the argument is basically, if the facts were different, the story would be covered differently. But we don't write counterfactual articles; we follow reliable sources, who in this case found the leak significant enough to publish. The Guardian reporting (not, as I thought at first, "the goddamn reporting") got picked up by other reliable sources like The Independent. Also, I said that all of the responding editors in this talk page section found the coverage on-topic. Einsof (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
So the argument is basically, if the facts were different, the story would be covered differently No actually, the argument is that even if the leaks accurately reflect the disagreement within CBS about how/whether to cover the 'internal bleeding' story (which they may well do), that tells us a huge amount about the state of morale in CBS, a bit about the current reliability of CBS and sweet nothing about the shooting itself. Not even how it is being covered in US news sources (except perhaps that some US 'insiders' are unhappy about the constraints they are currently working under and wish they could be more openly sceptical about govt claims)!
We follow reliable sources actually it's one source that bothered to cover the 'leak' and yes the Guardian is very reliable, but so what? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion! How does this internal drama relate to the shooting? Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
It only being the Guardian doesn't seem to be correct as the Independent also covered the Guardian report. More marginal sources include Salon and MediaIte . There might be more. And the marginal reliability of these sources should be compared to the marginal reliability of the sources mentioning the internal bleeding thing. Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Another quality RS which covers the Guardian report is . Note that although this is on the Forbes sites section it's by Forbes staff as Forbes now do for all staff content. So it's a decent RS not Forbes contributor content. 00:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the passage, worded as it was, made the information sound less relevant. I reworded it to closely follow the source and address the objection about the passage being irrelevant:
CBS staffers questioned the report that Ross had internal bleeding after killing Good, but chief editor Bari Weiss had an interest in publishing the story.
Also, it's WP:UNDUE to include CBS's words while excluding the skepticism. Jade Ten (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful input, Pincrete. Agreed that this is little more than gossip, and doesn't substantively affect the topic of the article. Disgruntled employees anonymously leaking office gossip about what multiple CBS employees described as "standard editorial discussions" is simply not WP:DUE.
More importantly:
  • It's no longer relevant. The Guardian is wrong when it claims the internal bleeding claim "was not extensively covered by other news organizations"—it even acknowledges that ABC, NBC, FOX, and the NYT covered it, and obviously many more have since done so.
  • The claims of internal bleeding are no longer "anonymous", having been repeated more than once by DHS assistant secretary of public affairs Tricia McLaughlin—making the entire premise of the Guardian's article doubly irrelevant.
Once again, we must remember that our encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEWS—and that breathless reporting of this sort of half-baked nonsense falls far below encyclopedic standards. Ekpyros (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
If the current rewording still doesn't sound relevant or is objectionable in another way, then I concede that inclusion fails due to WP:ONUS. No one wants to die on a hill. Jade Ten (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't think source anonymity is the fundamental issue. It's the fact that people in the newsroom didn't believe in the veracity or completeness of the information, e.g., In another email, an executive expressed skepticism about the broad nature of the medical diagnosis, and what it actually entailed. “I’m no doctor, but internal bleeding is a very broad term and can range in severity,” wrote CBS News senior vice-president David Reiter.. This Guardian article undermines the conclusions presented in the CBS article, which is why it needs to be included if the CBS article or the conclusions from it are mentioned at all. Einsof (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
My point is that we don't need to include the CBS article at all, or anything about anonymous officials. Tricia McLaughlin told CNN that Ross suffered internal bleeding—we should include that claim, without getting into its hypothetical veracity or internal newsroom discussions about how to cover prior, anonymously sourced claims. Just include that DHS has made a claim—one which may well prove to be true or untrue in due course. Ekpyros (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Except it is relevant: This discussion, Lead - internal bleeding, Hospital, and Treated at Hospital. This is the fourth time that the injuries to the ICE agent has been discussed, ignoring all the other times it got brought up briefly in a discussion. We have repeatedly discussed the topic.
We have claims from the Government that the agent was apparently seriously injured. We have claims here that CBS internally debated on if it was worth reporting with implications that the story was published for the benefit of the Government. We have reliable sources still saying that there are doubts to these claims. It isn't half-baked nonsense at all. (As an aside: if you are going to try to claim that this should be excluded for NOTNEWS again, mention the specific point you are citing. A vague wave to policy isn't appriciated in deletion discussions and is hard to follow in regular discussions.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Let me be clear about what I am arguing. If any RS casts doubt on the 'internal bleeding' story, offering arguments about why they think it should be doubted, I wholeheartedly support inclusion of those doubts, (including doubts about whether the car contacted the agent and doubts about whether/in what way he was injured). However what we are offered in the 'CBS leak' story are unnamed CBS staff saying that there were fierce battles within CBS, (mainly seemingly between the 'old guard' and the newly appointed editor (and her supporters?)). AFAI can see, this is a 'sideshow', it tells us nothing about the incident, nor much about media coverage in US, but quite a bit about internal strife at CBS, is that the topic of the article? Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The relevance seems to be that part of WP:RS is we rely on secondary sources to make fair and reasonable editorial judgments about whether the evidence is sufficient to publish something. In, this case there seems to be an open question over whether this happened for that particular story. If we decide we don't need the CBS story, IMO it would be reasonable to remove the whole thing. But as long as we have the CBS story, I think we need to include the questions over it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
It seems that pretty much all US news sources are now covering the 'internal bleeding' claim, with various degrees of scepticism. Another editor above says that the two officials who were the source of these claims, have now been named, so, really we aren't reliant on CBS and the Gdn 'leak story' has no bearing on THIS page. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that's true; the section title is "Dispute about whether the vehicle struck ross". The media dispute is part of the dispute. Einsof (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be correct. Most of those other sources are referring to CBS News's report and/or Fox News's report. I only noticed one the Independent who said they received independent confirmation and another Forbes mentioned the questions raised by the Guardian over the CBS News report. In any case the fact is were are still explicitly mentioning the CBS News report separate from our mention over the questions raised by the Guardian, whether or not we should. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I realised now that the Forbes article is their sites part so is not an RS. However it does illustrate the point that despite the claim "pretty much all US news sources" at least for me many of the sources which show up in that search aren't great RS or are not RS e.g. besides Forbes sites it includes Fox News and NY Post. Although I did notice The Hill also says they received confirmation from the DHS. . I wouldn't be completely opposed to rewording the section to make it clear ICE has said the agent suffered internal bleeding but no evidence has been provided to support this nor on the severity and sources have been skeptical of the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to wade into how credible DHS's claims are at all? We're not a news organization, and all we need to include is that DHS has claimed their agent suffered internal bleeding. Obviously we're not saying he did or didn't. And wading into the opinions of various organizations and individuals as to how credible this particular claim is seems like a hornet's nest of complete irrelevancy. If someone notable is claiming that Ross didn't suffer internal bleeding, then of course that's fine to include—but as to debates about whether CBS should have run a story is outside the scope of this article. Ekpyros (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
On the contrary, the fact that multiple reliable sources have expressed doubt over this claim is way more significant than someone notable doing do. This is little different from any other claim someone makes but where no one particularly accepts or believe them e.g. if someone claims climate change is primarily natural or vaccines cause autism or Russia has a special operation in Ukraine because of Nazis or everyone is happy in China's special education camps for Uyghurs or whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Nil Einne , obviously something isn't necessarily true because DHS says so—I should hope that's obvious. But what RS have asserted that Ross didn't suffer internal bleeding, or specifically "expressed doubt" that he did? Ekpyros (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, pretty much all sources which covered this have treated it with skepticism as noted by the Guardian. Even CBS News said "It was unclear how extensive the bleeding was. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Ross' injury, but has not yet responded to CBS News' requests for more information." and Fox News "The extent of the bleeding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross was not immediately clear." There seems to be virtual no RS which has just reported the claim as is. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Again, how does this bear on our including that DHS officials said that their agent was injured? Is there any credible doubt that they said that? Ekpyros (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
No as I said, it's doubt over what they said. Again, this is the same as when anyone else says something but sources treat the statement with strong skepticism. I won't repeat the examples but they're there and plenty of people have said such things and there's no doubt they've said such things, the skepticism is instead simply over these veracity of these statements not that they were made. AFAICT, there has never been any doubt that someone in the Trump admin was saying it. The concerns expressed within CBS as reported by the Guardian for example, weren't doubts over someone saying it. Instead they were because staffers felt that they were being used to launder a "leak" of information via a friendly source who wouldn't ask too many questions and wouldn't spend the effort to ask others about the claim before reporting it. The fact that it was a leak also meant it was more difficult to ask those difficult questions to DHS over the claim. BTW, where is this CNN source in the internal bleeding. Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I'd note that it's very common we do the same for other governments who repeatedly make highly questionable claims e.g. Russia, China, Venezuela. Even countries like India, Malaysia, Singapore at times. We report their claims but acknowledge significant skepticism over them. It's just that some people are still treating the US government as if they aren't worth the same treatment when most sources seem to now accept they are. But this is a highly questionable attitude as noted at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#DHS claims in Killing of Renée_Good. Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also I'd been planning to check this but forgot. In fact the Forbes source I found which is also that mention by Super Goku is an RS since although it's on their sites section since it was by staff. I'd forgotten that Forbes had moved everything on the sites section. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw this. (Guess I should read all the new comments before replying next time...)
Thank you for double checking. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
what RS have asserted that Ross didn't suffer internal bleeding, or specifically "expressed doubt" that he did?
As I noted in the Lead - internal bleeding section above, AFAIK, no RSs have asserted in their own voice that he did experience internal bleeding, and there's no reason for any RSs to assert in their own voice that he didn't. Rather, what sources are doing is reporting that DHS officials said he experienced internal bleeding, and some are noting that this is questioned by some (1, 2) and some are noting that they've asked for more details but not gotten answers (e.g., the AP: "The official did not provide details about the severity of the injuries, and the agency did not respond to questions about the extent of the bleeding, exactly how he suffered the injury, when it was diagnosed or his medical treatment"; Noem's refusal to answer on Face the Nation yesterday.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oh fudge me. It literally says Forbes Staff on the author's page. I hate the Forbes.com contributors program. (Amended: It was confirmed that the Forbes story I linked to above was not from the Forbes contributors program.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC) (Amended at 02:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC))
Super Goku V, Forbes sources their reported "doubts" to "social media users" and Jacob Frey. As far as I can tell, this is essentially saying "some people don't believe the agent was injured"—not reporting that anyone credible, unbiased, and/or with any expertise in the matter has stated that he wasn't or that DHS officials are flatly lying. Obviously I'm not suggesting that our article should state that the agent was injured—only that DHS officials said so. Was anyone at CBS claiming that no DHS official said so? If that's the case, they've been proven wrong. Ekpyros (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Well, if you are willing to accept a slightly older article, then here is the New York Times: "In a video analysis, The Times focuses on some of the key contested moments of the agent’s cellphone video alongside other footage. More videos are likely to emerge, but the visual evidence shows no indication that the agent who fired the shots, Jonathan Ross, had been run over." There are doubts that he was significantly injured in the incident.
Regarding those last lines, the issue was the exact injury sustained:
  • Before the original report was published, a medical producer at the network suggested in an email to colleagues that “it would be helpful to ask what type of treatment he received”, and whether the officer received surgery or any other type of procedure.
  • In another email, an executive expressed skepticism about the broad nature of the medical diagnosis, and what it actually entailed. “I’m no doctor, but internal bleeding is a very broad term and can range in severity,” wrote CBS News senior vice-president David Reiter.
  • “A bruise is internal bleeding. But it can also be something serious,” Reiter continued. “We do know that the ICE agent walked away from the incident – we have that on camera.” (The network’s story noted that “videos from the scene showed Ross walking away after the incident”.)
Finally, reliable sources are doing the best they can when there is no record for the injuries he supposedly suffered and apparently went to the hospital for. So are we. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is called 'Bari', it was started by User:Red Slash, about this content, (which he and I have removed several times, but been reverted):CBS staffers later leaked to the Guardian that the report on the internal bleeding drew skepticism within the CBS newsroom, but was received with great interest by chief editor Bari Weiss. The question Red Slash asked was "someone please explain how in the world CBS's internal newsroom drama is in any way deserving of being included in an article about someone shooting Renee Good" i.e. the question is simply 'is the internal CBS 'feud' relevant to the shooting? Currently, our coverage of this feud has got less clear and somewhat 'pointedly' ambiguous, now we have "CBS staffers questioned the report that Ross had internal bleeding after killing Good, but chief editor Bari Weiss had an interest in publishing the story." What on earth does 'had an interest' mean? She wanted to publish? She stood to gain if she published?. And isn't "questioning reports" what newsrooms do? It's aka 'fact-checking'. Clearly the intended implication is that in this instance the scepticism/endorsement of the story rift was deeper than normal journalistic disagreement, but so what? What does that tell us about the shooting?

I believe we now know with certainty that govt sources claimed that the agent had suffered internal bleeding. We have clearly stated caveats and scepticism about those govt claims. Why are we still using the Gdn's 'leak' story or the text about Bari? Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not read all of the above but the info about CBS staffers has been removed so can we also remove the Guardian source citation? GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
thank you Red Slash 18:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't agree, but it is fine for now. If there ever is more about this, then it can be discussed then. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Picture of Ross

Latest comment: 5 months ago30 comments18 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. Participants seem equally split. There might be more support in favor of inclusion of a non-color-corrected version. As suggested, for transparency I have adjusted the caption to note that the colors have been altered. -- Beland (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Reflection of Ross as he filmed Good's car.

I don't think the picture of Ross really adds anything meaningful to the article. It's ultra low-quality and distorted as it's a reflection from a vehicle's non-uniform body. Plus he has a mask on and is not facing the reflection. Does it add anything meaningful, and should it be kept? I'm leaning toward no. What are everyone's thoughts? -- Veggies (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The quality is very poor... it is a reflection on a car? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
It's from the video shot by him, so, yes: a reflection from the uneven surface of a car body. And it's been color-corrected in post-processing. -- Veggies (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I was wondering about that myself. I've removed the image pending further discussion Placeholderer (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGEQUALITY says Poor-quality images...should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Whether or not to include the image depends on whether or not it's necessary to communicate via an image what Alexis Jazz describes below Placeholderer (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it really adds much. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Information you can gather from the picture:
  1. He wears a mask.
  2. He has a ton of gear on him.
  3. He's wearing camo colors.
  4. He's filming with what appears to be a cellphone.
  5. He was very close to Good's car.
  6. His ethnicity appears to be similar to that of Good, so the killing was unlikely to be motivated by racism.
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't think visual acuity is a good reason to filter out photos on an article about a sudden killing. This isn't a movie. Nobody was planning on staging and lighting this for display as part of a national news story later. The picture shows all of the information available in the slightly-better (presumably not public domain) photo of him I've seen floating around the internet. Short of a picture of him without a mask, this is literally just as good as that. "What did Ross look like?" is a valid question readers will be asking, and this is a satisfactory answer. lethargilistic (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
The picture also shows a big red thing. What is it? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
That's the tail-light of the vehicle; this is a photograph of a reflection in the back of vehicle. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
He's not wearing "camo colors". He's wearing blue jeans and an olive green jacket. What a perfect example of this heavily post-processed picture distorting the facts. Even the uploader couldn't accurately describe his clothes. -- Veggies (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
olive green is camo Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
That, and his mask, utility belt and hip bag are all various dark shades of green, brown and grey. If anyone wants to meander about the definition of "camo colors", I'm sure there are people on Discord who will indulge you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
No. Olive green is a uniform color. Camo means camouflage—something that's intended to disguise things to make them hard to see. It's risible to claim that an olive green jacket plus blue jeans makes someone hard to see in an urban environment. -- Veggies (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
It appears that, unlike the army and police, ICE doesn't have a uniform and so its operatives tend to have an ambiguous, paramilitary look (see GQ for details). The picture shows that the subject was dressed in this style. The fact that it's not clear is part of the problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Paywalled. And how does blue jeans and an olive jacket make you look "paramilitary"? Is it the vest? His vest said "POLICE" on it. -- Veggies (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Nu uh. Camo is also a color. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Alexandraaaacs1989, interesting. After doing some digging, I found the source for it: https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_xkcd.asp which draws from data of XKCD's color survey which is quite an interesting read! It's not an official standard, but it does indicate how people colloquially refer to colors. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep The image is clear enough to be helpful to the reader and we don't seem to have a better one. The fact that it's a reflection makes it especially interesting as a forensic clue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep until higher-quality photo is established. I agree with points made by Alexis Jazz about how even though the photo is low quality, it provides lots of information about the ICE agent that may be useful to the reader. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This photo clearly establishes facts pertinent to the event, especially, in my opinion, the fact that Ross was carrying & using a cellphone to record the incident. I highly doubt that a higher-quality image will ever be found. Every image in Wikipedia does not need to be of Wikipedia:Featured pictures quality, every image just needs to convey information about the subject, and, in this case, that information is very important to the killing of Renee Good. - Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep Too, timestamps and the angles are as relevant as the content, particular when analysed in the aggregate. (All of the video and photos shall be analyzed.) kencf0618 (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
All good reasons to Keep. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 16:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that it's certainly low quality but we need a stranger photo of him and we need to keep this photo until we have a higher quality photo. Bill Heller (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
No worth I'm afraid this could be an oil slick, an apparition, a bad bit of abstract art or anything almost. Unless this particular image is the subject of extensive analysis, it's confusing rather than illuminating AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
To my eye, it looks unclear initially but then it kinda snaps into focus as my eye/brain figures out the distortion and makes sense of it. Try giving it time. To help the reader who's coming to it cold, we should ensure that the caption explains the nature of the image. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I agree the image provides significant info to the reader as AJ and others point out above, and it seems to be the best image currently available. Perhaps a better one will become available, but for now, I think it adds some value and so is better than nothing. Levivich (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Remove - I didn't realize the extent of the modifications made to this image; it's more than I think editors should be doing for BLP images in mainspace. I might support an unmodified or less modified version but I'd have to see it first. Levivich (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Remove since it has obviously been altered. When readers look at the image in the infobox, and then this image, which is captioned as "the rear bodywork of Good's car", there is a stark difference in the colors. The article states the color of her vehicle is "maroon", which matches the infobox image, but not this one. We shouldn't leave our readers scratching their heads as to why it was altered.— Isaidnoway (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Then change the description Trade (talk) 01:30, 17 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.

Weighted polls

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi @GreenMeansGo: it’s not in the user-friendly site, but if you follow the article’s link to the original poll you can find information about weighting by scrolling to the very last page. The percentages they give are not the percentages of respondents. Rather, they weight the responses they get based on US demographics. So the percentages do represent YouGov’s research on “the population” according to their methodology. Mikewem (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A weighted sample is still not a population. Population level is like... the census. It means everyone, or at least very close to it. Not estimating something about everyone, but asking everyone. That the poll is weighted means they are adjusting their sample to better fit the population on factors likely to affect results. GMGtalk 02:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but some of the original language ("...29% of those surveyed...") is not correct and should not have been reinstated. What about "representative population"? Alternatively, using the word "estimate" to make statements about the population: Based on a survey of 1722 adults, they estimated that 29% of the population.... Einsof (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Projected population Mikewem (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
I’m overthinking it. The article says “X% of Americans” with all its stats. We should say “X% of Americans” in our presentation of the stats. Mikewem (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Einsof (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead - internal bleeding

Latest comment: 5 months ago38 comments12 people in discussion

A week later, US officials said he had "internal bleeding to the torso" due to being hit by the vehicle, - did they in fact say it was due to being hit by the vehicle, or simply "due to the incident"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC).

Regardless of how credible or not we find this claim, I don't think it belongs in the lead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
The sourcing on this is problematic. See the paragraph I just added to the "Hospital" section above. Also I agree with Gene, doesn't belong in the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the paragraph:
That afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that Ross was hospitalized and released. A week later, US officials said he had "internal bleeding to the torso" due to being hit by the vehicle, and was recovering in a safe location following multiple threats to his life. It was not clear to what extent the bleeding was, and DHS did not answer requests for more information.
I agree it's not lead material at the moment, it's not sufficiently significant that Ross was checked out at a hospital. If it's revealed to be duplicitous information then it's still better dealt with in the body. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC).
In the body I now added CBS News report on ICE officer’s injuries drew ‘huge internal concern’ from the Guardian. Seems like if internal bleeding gets mention in the lede, it needs to be qualified with statements about CBS. Einsof (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
This absolutely belongs in the lead: it's hard to fathom how an encyclopedia article about a law-enforcement shooting wouldn't include, in the very beginning, the officer's agency's official statements alleging he was attacked and injured prior to or during that shooting. Those statements have been as widely and reliably reported as anything else about this incident and leaving them out of the lead is bizarre.
Much of the lead is a mess. I don't see much evidence of "Federal law enforcement officials" or anyone other than Trump making the bombastic claim that Ross was "run over"—rather they seem to claim that Good was "attempting" to run him over, or similar. Our article ought not lead with the most absurd and obviously incorrect claim as a sort of straw-man, while ignoring the consistent and plausible claims of the government. Most RS seem to acknowledge that video(s) show Ross appearing to be hit by the vehicle—that should be in the lead. In the main text we of course can include analysis such as the NYT's latest tortured word-salad: "We can see the agent’s hand bracing against the S.U.V. and his arm getting pressed into his chest" which is "happening because of the S.U.V.’S movement or the icy asphalt or, more likely, both." Right now much of the lead's phrasing is an embarrassment and almost as tortured as the NYT's: "appearing to drive away from him" should be "accelerated while turning her wheel as Ross was in front of her SUV", something which virtually every RS acknowledges.
But in any case, of course we need to include that DHS claims that Ross was hit by Good's vehicle, injured, treated at a hospital, and released. Ekpyros (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Why is there a presumption the Federal government under the Executive is a reliable source for that? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
I fear you misunderstand. The federal government is not a reliable source for what actually took place, yes.
The federal government IS, however, the MOST reliable source for... saying what the federal government says.
The government's response in and of itself is notable. Red Slash 18:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
VPP has it 100% right. "Why is there a presumption the Federal government under the Executive is a reliable source for that?" I don't suffer under that presumption. As far as I can tell, the US Federal Government has basically discredited itself with constant lies since at least January 2025. Bill Heller (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
There's no presumption that the government is a reliable source. But the news sources that report on it can be RSs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
AFAIK the news came from "nameless officials from DHS" not from an official statement by DHS. Wasn't there a directive to the DHS staff to "...say nothing about the federal probe into Renee Good's killing"? Maybe by Todd Blanche? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The head of DHS has said from almost the beginning that Good hit Ross with her SUV, that he was injured, treated in a hospital, and released. DHS assistant secretary of public affairs Tricia McLaughlin has confirmed this, saying that he was "pretty banged up" after suffering internal bleeding, and is recovering at home. As Red Slash correctly noted, this information should not be put in Wikivoice for now, but obviously the agency involved is reliable for that agency's statements, and there's no question that their claims are WP:DUE and essential for our article's lead — agreed? Ekpyros (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
If you're saying that either Kristi Noem or Tricia McLaughlin said something about "internal bleeding," please link to it. Otherwise, whatever they did say was not about internal bleeding and is not particularly relevant to the questions at hand (i.e., whether there was any official statement about internal bleeding, whether this info belongs in the lead). The NYT said (archived copy) that Ross "was still on the scene [when they arrived], according to a report from the Minneapolis Police Department. About 15 minutes later, he was taken to a federal building." If he were seriously hurt, he'd have been taken to the hospital, not a federal building, and might even have been seen by one of the paramedics who'd arrived on scene. So I don't think it belongs in the lead, only in the body with the conflicting info about whether he was taken to the hospital from the scene or was taken to a federal building. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Further, since they're the only ones (presently) who can know what happened to Ross between the time he left the scene and his next confirmed and validated public sighting.
So, presently, if the Feds say Ross went from the scene of his shooting Good to death to a Federal building, and that's it, then all we are allowed to say is:
> Per the Feds, Ross went from the crime scene to a Federal building.
That's it. @Ekpyros who says where that Ross was admitted to, confirmed at, and treated by a non-government medical facility? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Please see my response to FactOrOpinion.
A side note: it's worth noting that now the NYT reports that Ross "was still on scene" when MPD arrived to secure it—since our article also states the exact opposite, again by citing the Gray Lady: "The New York Times reported in their analysis of a video of the incident that after the shooting that 'several agents, including the agent who opened fire, [got] in their vehicles and [drove] off, apparently altering the active crime scene." It's bad enough that the NYT's reporting directly contradicts its prior story and yet it doesn't see fit to issue any correction or clarification—but it's unforgivable for an encyclopedia to replicate their obvious error.
Once again, there's a reason we are NOTNEWS. Ekpyros (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Also, nowhere was I suggesting that Ross was "admitted to" or "confirmed at" a "non-governmental medical facility"—are these some new criteria you've invented that Wikipedia must meet in order to include statements from law-enforcement officials regarding injuries to or medical care for their employees? Again, all that should be included at this point is the statements—which require no HIPAA-violating leak from any hospital. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Ekpyros (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Driving off after 15 minutes is still altering the scene. Why are you saying that one "directly contradicts" the other? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion and Objective3000: The first NYT article stated that Ross left precipitously, thus "altering the crime scene"—indeed, it says that he left "at the same time" that ICE agents "block" a bystander "who identifies himself as a physician". But we know that this is patently false: ABC subsequently reported the time of the latter as 9:42, and the refusal to allow the "physician" access to Good's body can clearly be seen in video that runs continuously from the shooting itself—while the NYT now reports that Ross left "about" 10:45, some one full hour later than their initial report.
Those two NYT reports "directly contradict" each other as to the time—and, at least as importantly, the one falsely claiming that Ross left minutes after the shooting very clearly carries the entirely misleading insinuation that his departure somehow deliberately altered the scene in a way that made it more difficult to investigate his actions, which we now know is utter nonsense.
The truth is the exact opposite. The NYT now quotes the MPD, which was responsible for the crime scene, as saying “CONTACT WHO IS IN CHARGE OF FEDS AND HAVE THEM LEAVE SCENE”—at 10:07, more than a half hour after they initially claimed Ross had split. They further acknowledge that the police found that "evacuating ICE was difficult, as the crowd became increasingly agitated. About 20 people tried to surround officers at one point". Indeed, the paper now acknowledges it took police an additional ~25 minutes after that to get Ross safely away from threatening protestors.
I won't hold my breath for a correction from the Times—but our article absolutely needs to reflect the above, and surely there is no good-faith justification for continuing to include the sentence in our article that quotes the misleading NYT report. Ekpyros (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
You are obviously going to receive contradicting info in a fast moving situation where the gov't cannot be trusted. That's why we should follow WP:NODEADLINE and use the latest info. And it sounds like you just said the NYT did make a correction. Frankly, we often move too quickly in such news stories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation of your interpretation. Mine is different, perhaps because Ross's vehicle leaves the scene less than 2 minutes after the shooting, as can be seen in this this continuous video] It's possible that someone other than Ross drove away in it, though the bystander is yelling "don't let the murderer leave" as it's turning around to drive off.
Re: “CONTACT WHO IS IN CHARGE OF FEDS AND HAVE THEM LEAVE SCENE,” many clearly didn't leave right away.
Re: "the NYT now reports that Ross left "about" 10:45, some one full hour later than their initial report," no, it reports that that's what the police report said. But I wouldn't assume that the police report is "the truth". AFAIK, the police didn't even speak to Ross, and the video above suggests otherwise. So what you interpret as a NYT conflict, to me seems like a police report–bystander video conflict, and I'm inclined to trust the video. But it's also hard to know without being able to read the police report itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
If there is need for a correction, online NYT corrections are at:. In print, they are located on page 4 or page 20. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure:
Again here—and no doubt elsewhere.
Your opinion on and speculation about what might have happened "if he were seriously hurt" isn't the slightest bit relevant to our article, I'm afraid—and I will spare you and our Talk page my own thoughts. Ekpyros (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
@VPP: as best I can tell, it's not the Feds saying that Ross went to the federal building, it's the Minneapolis PD.
Ekpyros, first, thanks for the citations, though I hope that you're aware that Fox News is considered GUNREL for political news and RealClearPolitics is iffy. FWIW, when Noem was asked about this on Face the Nation today, she said "I'm not going to talk about his medical records. I know that you know that in itself is his prerogative to discuss his health." Second, speculation and other OR can be entirely legitimate outside of article space as long as it's focused on improving the article. (Not only is OR allowed outside of article space, it's sometimes essential, as at RSN.) Why is my speculation relevant? Because our judgments about the importance of something routinely affect decisions about whether we should include some particular content in the lead. I'm noting that there's conflicting info. I don't think it's worth noting the conflict in the lead, but if you think it does, OK. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. My concern wasn't with WP:OR but rather this sort of declarative statement—which, as far as I can tell, involved no research at all, and was simply opinion and speculation: "If he were seriously hurt, he'd have been taken to the hospital, not a federal building, and might even have been seen by one of the paramedics who'd arrived on scene." If there's research, original or otherwise, that supports that statement, of course I'm happy to consider it. Otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't see how it in any way moves the discussion—let alone our article—forward.
I've seen no sources stating how "seriously" Ross was or wasn't injured, nor am I aware of any that report on where or when "he'd have been taken" depending on the severity of his injuries. Have any RS reported that Ross was seen—or, as you seem to be suggesting—wasn't seen by "one of the paramedics".
Most importantly, where and what is this "conflicting info" to which you refer? I haven't seen any RS reporting that Ross didn't suffer from internal bleeding—or even reporting that any credible individual or entity has definitively stated he didn't. RS have, of course, posited questions: how seriously was Ross injured, what exactly does "internal bleeding" mean in this context, etc. Those questions, where specifically raised by reliable sources, may indeed belong in our article, but I think not in our lead. That said, I think it's good to include the fact that DHS statements have not elaborated further thus far, and am not opposed to something along the lines of: "DHS officials asserted that Good hit Ross with her SUV and that he was treated for internal bleeding at a hospital and released later the same day, but they declined to go into further detail about the nature or severity of any injuries he suffered."
I hope you'll agree that the lack of detail in statements from DHS officials, along with any questions left unanswered, don't themselves constitute "conflicting info"—something that, by definition, requires information that contradicts those positive statements. If I'm wrong, and RS report any actual information that does in fact directly contradict those official statements, then of course I am more than open to including that information in the lead. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
That kind of statement is OR. WP:NOR: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." It's a wide-ranging definition. The statement is based on experience/observation, as well as more general reading: when someone is seriously hurt, they generally go / are taken to the hospital, with some exceptions (e.g., someone who is poor might avoid going out of concern about the cost). When someone believes they are hurt, and paramedics are available, they generally speak to a paramedic. As for how it moves the conversation about the article forward, again, it can affect judgment about what info is DUE where.
"I haven't seen any RS reporting that Ross didn't suffer from internal bleeding." And I've seen no RSs reporting in their own voice that he did suffer from internal bleeding. All I've seen is RSs reporting that some at DHS claim that he did, or quoting them / showing video of them claiming that he did. Moreover, as best I can tell, no one at DHS has claimed that Ross was treated for internal bleeding, only that there was internal bleeding―a diagnosis rather than a treatment. Internal bleeding can vary greatly in severity, from a minor bruise to life-threatening. When internal bleeding is serious, there are symptoms (e.g., dizziness, vomiting blood). Had the paramedics suspected serious internal bleeding, they would have transported him to the hospital, since it can be life-threatening, depending on the nature. The fact that he didn't go with the paramedics suggests to me that either he didn't approach them with concern about having been injured or they didn't judge him to have any serious injury. The fact that he was left the hospital the same day indicates that whatever the internal bleeding was, it wasn't very serious (unless he left against medical advice).
The conflicting info I was referring to is where he went immediately after leaving the scene: the hospital or the federal building. But it may be that there's no statement that he went to the hospital from the scene, and therefore no conflict. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
There has been no statement about where he went for medical treatment and no statement about the CBS "internal bleeding" story or the anonymous “U.S. officials” it originally cited. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Ekpyros, the challenge you have is this: The government has made a claim about their "agent" suffering internal injuries. We don't know whether or not this is true and we cannot take the government's word for this because they have shown a pattern of lying to suit their political agendas. Any reporting, even if it's from a reliable source, cannot be relied upon unless it includes evidence of Ross's injuries that do not stem from government claims.
I'll point you to a few Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines which may be helpful for you regarding his matter:
Reliable Sources
Synth
No Original Research
Happy Editing! Bill Heller (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Not sure why it's so difficult for so many pedantic editors to grasp the difference between our article (1) stating that Ross suffered internal bleeding, and (2) stating that DHS officials asserted that Ross suffered internal bleeding. As is abundantly clear from all my prior comments, I have been advocating solely for the second, which is clearly WP:V, WP:DUE, and properly cited. Ekpyros (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Would claimed be more accurate than asserted?
Do we owe DHS benefit of the doubt? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that the key issue is whether they're owed the benefit of the doubt. They said it, and RSs reported that they said it. That doesn't imply that what they said is true; RSs haven't said in their own voice that it occurred. Some RSs have also said that the minimal statement raised questions, and Noem (and perhaps others) refused to answer any questions about it, and it may be appropriate to note that as well. The only thing that I, personally, am contesting is whether this belongs in the lead. I think it's sufficient to state it in the body of the article and not DUE in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I think that I agree. One unvetted claim that seems extraordinary doesn't belong in the lead. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I'd suggest it's more complicated, it depends on the level of coverage in reliable secondary sources of the claims. If in most outlooks discussing the killing mention the government's claims such that it's a significant part of the source, we should mention it in the lead. Otherwise we shouldn't. IMO this probably applies to the claim that the agent was hit, but I don't know if it applies to the internal bleeding bit. To give a related example Russo-Ukrainian war does cover the basics over what Russia has said about their invasion but doesn't go into detail and covers the rejection over Russia's view. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
And I would suggest that it is even more complicated than that. The claim of internal bleeding is presented by the Govt. as a proof, to the public, that he was hit by the vehicle. But what if he bumped himself getting into a vehicle to leave the scene. Or when he exited at whatever destination he was taken to. My personal scepticism prevents me from supporting mention of the internal bleeding in the lead. There are to many other possibilities for bruising immediately following the incident and hours later. If there was evidence that a bruising occured at 9:37:13 (or there about) we would have it~ Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 16:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
This DOES NOT belong in the lede. We have no way to verify the veracity of their claims. Therefore, it does not belong in the lede. This entire claim by the government, in the absence of literally any supporting evidence should not be in the lede. I'll go further. It shouldn't be in the article at all because we have no way to verify it.
WP:V states "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources." We cannot check whether or not this man actually had internal bleeding. Only a few government officials made this claim. There's no actual evidence and every reason for these people, who have a long track record of lying to suit their political agendas, to lie about this. Bill Heller (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what needs to be verifiable. If we wanted to say "Ross suffered internal bleeding," we'd need an RS saying in its own voice that Ross suffered internal bleeding. But we're not claiming that Ross suffered internal bleeding. We're only claiming "A DHS official said 'Ross suffered internal bleeding.'" And that can be verified, as RSs have said so. The latter is true even if the former is false. Do you understand the difference between the two claims, and how their truth-values can differ? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
I understand the difference between the verifiability of the claim being made and the verifiability of the veracity of the claim itself. Barring further evidence, we cannot verify the claim itself. Why should we include the claim of injury at all if it cannot be verified?
What happens if it later comes out (in a trial or something similar) that Kristi Noem (the claimant) was lying? This administration has lied almost constantly to advance their agendas. How do we deal with this and what does it do to our credibility if we were to repeat such outlandish claims without clearly informing the reader about the high probability that it's a lie? We could say something like "A DHS official said 'Ross suffered internal bleeding. No independent news outlets have been able to confirm the truth of this claim.". That's how I'd handle this at least. Bill Heller (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Re: "Why should we include the claim of injury at all if it cannot be verified?," it's because we can verify "A DHS official said 'Ross suffered internal bleeding,'" and it's widely reported by RSs. If it later comes out that "Ross suffered internal bleeding" is false, then we update the article to say something like "A DHS official said 'Ross suffered internal bleeding."[source 1] At trial, it was shown that the hospital did not report internal bleeding.[source 2]" There could be other alternatives, such as "At trial, it was shown that the internal bleeding described a minor bruise.[source 2]," if that's what came out instead. That is, we update the page to say what RSs are noting, as long as it's DUE. As for "the high probability that it's a lie," I don't think any of us has a valid way of determining this probability. Re: adding "No independent news outlets have been able to confirm the truth of this claim," we can only comment on the absence of confirmation if RSs themselves are commenting on the absence of confirmation. Otherwise, it would constitute WP:OR. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the statement reporting DHS's claim is fine for the body but probably undue for the lede. The only thing to be aware of is the discussion below about the CBS source — it has been entirely removed from the article because editors could not agree to include subsequent reporting from the Guardian calling the reliability of the CBS report into doubt. Einsof (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Renée_Good/Archive_4&oldid=1336711535"