Talk:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators#rfc 7F65D04

Two issues with the title: I know "lawmaker" is a common usage for senators and representatives collectively, at both a national and state level, but it's a bit informal. The article Minnesota Legislature refers to such a person as a "legislator" if you're not specifying representative or senator. This article should probably follow that usage.

Secondly, now that the two of the four victims have died and one was an elected official, would a title that uses "assassination" or "assassination of" rather than shooting be appropriate. (I'm on the fence on this second point.)

Even if "shooting" and "lawmakers" is kept, "2025 shootings of Minnesota lawmakers" is probably better than "2025 Minnesota lawmaker shootings". Peter G Werner (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:The title should absolutely use "assassination" because that would more adequately describe what happened. "Shooting" does not capture what occurred appropriately. Other pages covering assassinations of politicians use "assassination." Redtreason (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Eventually, yes. You should feel free to create redirects from more appropriate titles, and we have a move discussion eventually. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I do believe a more appropriate title of "assassination" is warranted Macbrindle (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This doesn't cover assassinations of MN legislators though. It covers one assassination of a legislator and the fatal shooting of her husband, plus the shooting of another legislator and their wife. How would you word the title to fit assassination in there to cover the whole story? --Onorem (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"June 2025 Assassination and Shootings of Minnesota legislators" or "June 2025 Assassination-Shootings of Minnesota legislators"

:::::Could call them "lawmakers" instead of "legislators" too but that is not as important to me. Macbrindle (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: To summarize, how should the mention of non-legislator bystanders be mentioned? How is this treated in different articles? Raync (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The title seems fine as is. The whole reason the two spouses were shot was precisely because they were spouses. The shooter targeted legislators.

:::::::I agree with the reason given by Onorem as to why "assassinations" doesn't work, and trying to use both terms is clumsy. YoPienso (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. These were assassinations. The Wikipedia articles on the Trump shootings use the word, this article needs to as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4B80:340:7C40:B86E:D1C1:B665 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What title do you suggest? There was an assassination. I agree completely. I don't think anyone here has said it wasn't an assassination and a separate assassination attempt. I'm just at a loss at how we could title this article to cover all of the specifics. --Onorem (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752958900}}

{{rfc|pol|rfcid=7F65D04}}

Should the name of the suspect of these shootings be included in the article? wizzito | say hello! 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:RfC is not really needed here, other than to address the widespread misconception of the text at WP:BLPCRIME and the widespread misstatement of policy on this article. The policy is unambiguous, it only applies to non-public figures. If the suspect's name is mentioned in a multitude RSs, then they are a public figure. We should include their name as long as we include "allegedly" in conjunction with his alleged crimes.

:No editors have alleged that his name is not appearing in a multitude of reliable sources, therefore, there is no real dispute here. His name should be included per overwhelming precedent. Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I definitely agree with you, but this kind of situation tends to repeat itself when a high-profile crime or arrest in a cold case happens – certain editors use their interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME to argue against inclusion and other editors use widespread media coverage to argue in favor of it. A RfC generally tends to prevent back-and-forth edit warring in cases like this. wizzito | say hello! 21:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::See both Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 1#RFC: Name of alleged killer and Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1#Name of suspect as examples where significant debate was had over this very issue. wizzito | say hello! 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In my experience, the back and forth dies down one or two hours after the police announce the name. Granted, that announcement tends to happen when the suspect is in custody. Maybe one or two hours after the suspect is apprehended could be a useful metric here. Mikewem (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::In both cases I linked the RfC was started way longer than one to two hours later because the dispute kept happening. Just my experience, though. wizzito | say hello! 21:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the difference (at first glance) is that this page has protection per ctop Mikewem (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is a misunderstanding of how the policy works. If this was true, we would be able to always name a person accused of a crime when their name is public. There is a reason both PERPETRATOR and NOTPUBLICFIGURE are linked to from BLPCRIME.

::PERPETRATOR makes it clear that the suspect doesn't fit our guidelines for notability. The fact that they don't leans towards them not being a public figure.

::NOTPUBLICFIGURE makes it clear that we need to be cautious about this. {{tpq|Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.}}

::I do not believe the name of the suspect should be in the article at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We are always able to name a person accused of a crime when they are a public figure (that’s quite different from “their name is public”). Boelter is a high-profile figure (public figure) per WP:LOWPROFILE because he allegedly “participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern”.

:::WP:PERP and the rest of WP:BIO solely deal with article titles. The title of this article is not “Vance Boelter”. Mikewem (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There is a difference between being able to do something and doing something. I am not saying that we must never name a person, just that it should be limited to public figures and after discussion if they haven't been convicted.

::::How does him *allegedly* committing a shooting qualify as attention-seeking? I don't think this meets the "Promotional activities" criteria.

::::PERPETRATOR does not solely deal with article titles. (Even BIO doesn't if you review BIO1E.) Besides, my point there was that the suspect doesn't even qualify for a standalone article. Them not qualifying for such an article implies not being a public figure. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was looking into another matter and came across this: [https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-shootings-manhunt-06-14-25#cmbwxm3sv000p3b6mqo2q0354 10 things to know about the shooting suspect - CNN]. I don't like including the suspect's name, but I think you might be able to make the argument for a public figure based on the Africa trips. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:I tend to agree that this is premature, but the assertion above that "if their name is in reliable sources they're a public figure" is flat out wrong. The suspect is not notable aside from this event - I have seen nothing in reliable sources to suggest that, nor any indication that they were notable before this event as far as Wikipedia was concerned before this. The name doesn't add anything yet - it'll take a day or two for the police and reliable sources (ex: news) to investigate the background of the suspect and try and determine if there's any relevant information - and then up to a week for initial reports to be corrected if need be. Thus, the name can be left out for a few days pending further information. There is no rush, and WP:BLP is about how we should always err on the side of caution, especially for fast-changing information/very recent events. Hence I'm not !voting on this one way or another at this point, but just encouraging everyone to take a step back and let this develop over the next week or so before we decide one way or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::The one event point only applies to whether there should be an individual article for Boelter, that's not the debate here, I recommend reading WP:NOTBLP1E. Public figure says he is a public figure. Mikewem (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I wasn't referencing BLP1E, but the BLP policy as a whole, which is about how we should always err on the side of caution. At a minimum we should wait until they actually charge the suspect before naming them. For all we know (however unlikely), the person being named was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and they'll never charge him. There is no rush to add the name and it does not add any significant context to the events - we can continue to add information about the suspect without publishing the name until it either becomes certain that they're being charged and/or the name is shown to add significant context to the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe it is best to keep using "suspect" until they have at least caught them, while it may not technically be against the rules I believe it's better to err on the side of caution when the suspect is still on the run and they are actively being searched for. There is no need to hurry, Wikipedia isn't breaking news.

:Things still move so quickly and even if we are technically right using suspect and alleged, it can still put the name in people's heads. Let's wait until the authorities have them or we have official police confirmation.

:I'd rather have wikipedia be late with facts 100 times than post something that could be harmful once.

:Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 21:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like I was overly conservative in my understanding of what constitutes a public figure. Per the public figure article, he would meet the definition of an involuntary public figure: {{tq|an individual who has become a public figure as a result of publicity, although they may or may not have voluntarily sought it out. This can include victims of crime, as well as those who commit crimes or are accused of it.}} And the sources support what's in the article. Thanks {{u|Mikewem}}. Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Given that his name has been very widely reported now, I think it's fair to name him as having been identified by the police as a person of interest. Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::What counts as a public figure for BLP is not necessarily what would normally be called a "public figure" by the public. See WP:BLPNAME: {{tq|When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.}} (emphasis added) and {{tq|it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context}}. At this point, the name doesn't add anything since there's not much reliable information out there. We can wait to add it until there's more information that suggests the name adds significant context. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The way you are representing the text of blpname gives me pause. The actual text is {{tq|When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.}}

:::His name has been widely disseminated. Mikewem (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Like I quoted, however, BLPNAME recommends us consider primarily sources other than news media, which by definition don't exist barely 12 hours after the events happened. So as I've said, I'm not saying "no", I'm saying it's too soon to try and decide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes. It should be afforded greater weight. But there are no {{tq| scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts}}, so we can't give them weight one way or the other. And you're missing something important by ignoring the end of that paragraph: {{tq|Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value}}.

:::::This person is (allegedly) directly involved. Wikipedia policy can't be interpreted by taking statements out of their context. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::* Exclude name - Exclude name from article, redirects AND talk page prior to conviction. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::*:(Sigh) Of course there would be a redirect already... --Super Goku V (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::*:It might take years for there to bea conviction.2001:4430:5102:35BD:A873:7521:2A1C:768B (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude the name and the police blotter details Wikipedia is not a news site nor is it a law enforcement resource. The presence of an extensive section on the identity of the alleged shooter is a gross BLP violation. This man is absolutely not a public person. He's some random guy who may pr may not have done something awful. Until more is known this is too soon by far. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Lean include. Re: point on WP:BLPNAME above, we now have far, far more than the 'brief appearance of names in news stories'. He's been profiled at some length in separate articles with attributed bylines in outlets like [https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/minnesota-shooting-suspect-told-friend-text-message-i-might-be-dead-soon-2025-06-15/ Reuters], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/14/vance-boelter-shooting-suspect-minnesota-lawmakers/ WaPo] and [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/minnesota-shootings-gunman-suspect.html NYT], and his name and biographical information appear frequently in reliable sources. WP:BLPCRIME says that we must seriously consider excluding the name, but this still has to be weighed. The identity and motivations behind political assassinations/attempts are likely to be very significant by their nature, and this is reflected in the extent of the high quality, non-tabloid coverage not just on the shootings and manhunt but on the suspect himself. I've said lean only because I can understand not wanting to jump to inclusion in the immediate aftermath and/or while the story is on-going, but I think that does leave us asking what the line is that would make it appropriate and why. Regardless though the suspect section should be significantly trimmed to the parts relevant to the shootings per WP:NPF. We don't need to know he might have once run a 7/11. Chaste Krassley (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC) {{sbb}}
• :This gets back to the perennial gray-area of the definition of "public person" of whether a person can be made a public person on the basis of a single event and when they have not sought publicity. I tend toward no. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I tend toward no also, I think if somebody can be made a public person for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME (for other purposes they plainly can be) by being accused of the crime being considered it is kind of begging the question. But if that is the case any interpretation of the policy must allow for circumstances where the extent of the coverage or the notability of the crime or some other factors nevertheless can overcome the strong caution against including the name of the accused, as in the case of Killing of Brian Thompson, or Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida. Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think there is an argument to be made here that when he allegedly targeted high-profile individuals, he was seeking publicity; he had to have known his alleged actions were going to make him a public figure, because of the victims involved, and the [https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/nx-s1-5433748/minnesota-shooting-suspect-vance-boelter-arrested-melissa-hortman-john-hoffman hit list] authorities found. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include. His actions have accorded him notoriety (and notability), his name is published worldwide. He has moved way beyond his name requiring protection by Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include It's a very high-profile case, and the cat is out of the bag at this point. Some1 (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Words have meanings. I urge a clearer distinction between "suspect", the named person who is suspected of the crime, and "shooter" or "perpetrator", the possibly unknown person who definitely did the crime. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If I were in a mood to be WP:POINTy, I'd replace "the suspect" with "Vance Boelter" in three places:

• {{xt|Despite this, Vance Boelter escaped the police on foot after exchanging gunfire.}}
• {{xt|Due to Vance Boelter{{'}}s impersonation of a police officer, residents were advised not to open the door to police unless two officers were present.}}
• {{xt|United States senator Mike Lee of Utah tweeted the CCTV photo of Vance Boelter in the mask on his personal account ...}}

(I see that most such uses of "the suspect" have been removed since my first look.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please participate in the RfC section above instead of suggesting to be pointy. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::My complaint is not about whether to use his name. —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I replaced the suspect with either Boelter or the attacker as seemed appropriate. —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Again, please participate in the RfC section above. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators|answered=yes}}

from:

{{cite web|last1=Hippensteel|first1=Chris|last2=Bogel-Burroughs|first2=Nicholas|last3=Londoño|first3=Ernesto|

last4=Baker|first4=Mike|last5=Walker|first5=Mark|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/minnesota-shootings-gunman-suspect.html|title=What We Know About the Minnesota Shooting Suspect|work=The New York Times|date=June 14, 2025}} speaking against abortion rights and transgender people.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzj4YAPixBQ "Wanted Shooting Suspect, Vance Boelter Preaching in Africa About Sexuality,"] YouTube. No date. [Note: This seems to be a recent cut from a longer video.]

to:

{{cite web|last1=Hippensteel|first1=Chris|last2=Bogel-Burroughs|first2=Nicholas|last3=Londoño|first3=Ernesto|

last4=Baker|first4=Mike|last5=Walker|first5=Mark |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/minnesota-shootings-gunman-suspect.html|title=What We Know About the Minnesota Shooting Suspect |work=The New York Times |date=June 14, 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.is/H1Qmz |archive-date=16 June 2025}} speaking against abortion rights and transgender people.{{cite web |author1=Jay is 4 Justice Podcast |title=Wanted Shooting Suspect, Vance Boelter Preaching in Africa About Sexuality |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzj4YAPixBQ |date=15 June 2025 |quote= }} (Note: This seems to be a recent cut from a longer, earlier, video.)

Piñanana (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{question}} This was a bit confusing to me initially. If I have this right, you want the following changes: Change the NYT citation to use a ref name, to link to the NYT article in the work parameter, to add an archive.is link; and to then change the YouTube citation from a basic reference to a Cite Web citation. Is this correct? (On a different note: Why do we have a YouTube link as a citation anyways?) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I linked to two YouTube videos of Boelter preaching in the DRC. They're obviously valid and supported by other, though perhaps tangential, sources: We know he traveled to the DRC and preached there. The speaker is obviously Boelter. But one video is undated and yes, they're just a YouTube videos.

::I don't understand the edit request nor your parsing of it. YoPienso (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@YoPienso: The issue I had with YouTube was WP:RSPYT: {{tpq|Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. (Emphasis mine)}} (Though, Wikipedia:Video links implies that it can be used as a reference, so I might be missing a key detail here.) There is still a possible copyright issue per WP:COPYLINK. I haven't viewed the video until now, but there is a watermark that says LBMtv in the upper-left corner. I can't find what that watermark is for, but I am struggling to believe that the uploader had permission for that. I have temporarily taken down the citation for the moment to await your reply. (As for the edit request, they mainly just want to change small parts of the New York Times citation and change the YouTube citation to use the Cite Web template.)

:::{{reply|Piñanana}} Can you confirm that I got that right or wrong? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::mainly just want to change small parts of the New York Times citation and change the YouTube citation to use the Cite Web template Piñanana (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Gotcha. I can edit the New York Times citation, but I am waiting for YoPienso to reply before considering to restore the YouTube citation, so that part will be left undone for now. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Partly done}}: Did what I could do for the NTY citation. (An archive was already added to it since this edit request was started, so I left those parameters alone.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

A newer ref from [https://people.com/minnesota-lawmaker-shootings-prosecutor-speaks-out-11755439 People] gives strong support to include “politically motivated” and strong support to exclude anything beyond that from our infobox at this point. Thoughts?

:“I have not seen anything involving some sort of political screed or manifesto that would clearly identify what motivated him. Obviously, his primary motive was to go out and murder people. They were all elected officials. They were all Democrats. Beyond that, I think it’s just way too speculative for anyone that’s reviewed these materials to know and to say what was motivating him in terms of ideology or specific issues.” - Acting US Attorney for the District of Minnesota Joseph H. Thompson

Mikewem (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:From what I recall of People: If it is objectable, then don't include. If it isn't, then it is fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I view People as better for who is dating who than for investigations into the killings of politicians, but regardless, the quotation appears to suggest that the lack of a political manifesto or anything which clarifies intent means that attributing the commonalities among targets to political motivation would be speculative. So it does not appear to provide strong support for political motivation. HussainHx (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::People has been debated enough that it appears at WP:RSPS. In short, it is good for BLP. The only catch is the following, {{tpq|q=y|the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented}}, in which case it should be excluded. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::[https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/06/17/us/vance-boelter-minnesota-shootings-charges-hnk CNN] reports most of the quote, and includes in “CNN-voice”: “{{tq|Authorities say it’s still unclear what may have motivated Boelter.}}" Mikewem (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for finding a better source. It looks like CNN clarified that motivation is not known. So again, I would not support adding political motivation to the infobox. Motivations are in the head of the agent unless the agent makes them explicit. HussainHx (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::“Explicit” is probably in the eye of the beholder. To me, “{{tq|They were all elected officials. They were all Democrats.}}” is explicit, but I can see how there is room to not see that as an explicit motive.

::::Either way, are we good to blank the motive entry in the infobox based on CNN? (It currently says “politically motivated, anti-abortion (suspected)”) Mikewem (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I support blanking. We can re-add when we have more clarity in RS. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for the discussion. I need to clarify--if you find me eating soup, it could be because I am hungry, and that would be the most likely explanation. But it could also be because I am bored, or I thought the soup seemed tasty and I wanted to try it. So while it may be implicit that I am hungry, you do not know for sure unless I make that explicit by saying or writing why I am eating the soup. You just have the fact of the matter that you observed me eating soup. And murder investigations are not based on speculation. Point of interest, there has also been speculation about religious motivation as well as political ([https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/opinion/minnesota-killings-boelter.html link to op-ed]). I second blanking until clarity surfaces from RS. HussainHx (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Reading no objection, I blanked motive field in infobox with comment indicating “intentionally blank”. HussainHx (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What exactly happened that was so bad? Trade (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:That's not revision deletion as those would just have one line of stricken text like that. But regardless, the first non-stricken edit is from Sdrqaz who wrote in the edit summary: {{tpq|q=y|The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects}} with a link to WP:BLPNAME. So there were instances where 'we' were discussing too much and were breaching the Privacy of personal information part of BLP. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I totally don't get this. Seems like overkill. Was this about the privacy of the Boelter family? or of the victims' families? YoPienso (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Privacy of the suspect's family based on the text near the redacted portions, but it would also apply to the victims' families. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Is an inclusion of the camera still of Boelter with the mask he used encyclopedic and should it be included in the article? (It's already on Wikimedia Commons, sourcing isn't an issue.)
2. Where could it be included?

OfTheUsername (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you link to the image? I am not sure what the source is, so I have a concern right now. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::One example OfTheUsername (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Gotcha. I am a bit concerned about the claim that it is from {{tpq|q=y|a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera}} as this looks like it was from a residential camera, but at the same time it was released by the FBI. So I guess we are okay.

:::As for where to use it, I would say either the infobox or the events section. The only problem might be that we will have three or four right-aligned things in a row, but if that is an issue, we can make something left-aligned later on. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::" it was released by the FBI. So I guess we are okay." That means nothing Trade (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Quote|Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below.
If a source other than the Department of Justice or other federal government agency is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. Please note that some photos, graphics and other materials used on this website are copyrighted. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies. This copyright notice only pertains to the Department of Justice website.}}

:::::Nevertheless, is it not the role of the Wikimedia Commons community (and not Wikipedia) to make the determination on if it's a free content image? OfTheUsername (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not really. Sometimes things get uploaded to Commons that should not be. There have been a good number of times where someone notice a problem with an image used in an article and took it off the article while starting a discussion at Commons. For the moment, I can go talk to the user who uploaded this to get their thoughts. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::On second thought (and after a quick check), I think I might need to go a different route here. Let's hold off on that image for now. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::My understanding of FBI stuff is that it is part of the federal government and thus stuff from it is generally in the public domain. Outside of that, the camera seems to be automated, but I am not 100% there. Hence why I am saying "I guess" rather than been 100% sure.

:::::I guess right now it comes down to if the CCTV licensing is correct or not. If not, then the FBI part might matter, but given where the camera appears to be, I am a bit more un-confident than what I was. So, I guess this needs to go to noticeboard to review. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ahh, thanks, I understand now. I'll refrain from adding any of those to the article until there's clearer consensus on its free use. Are you adding it to the noticeboard or shall I? OfTheUsername (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Whoops, I got sidetracked by the reply bug. The noticeboard I was thinking of was MCQ, which handles media copyright questions, but it seems that we should be good now based on discussion with the uploader and Guettarda's response below. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's a surveillance camera, which means it can only be at the home of the Hoffmans, the Hortmans, or Kristin Bahner. The only question is whether the positioning of the camera counts as sufficient "human input" to create something copyrightable.

::::::This image page on Commons has been edited by one admin and two others with advanced rights, while the other one has been edited by the two non-admins who edited the first one.

::::::I'd trust Commons users with advanced rights to know what's borderline and needs review. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Positioning of a camera is not ever enough to eliminate CCTV. Any image or video solely generated by a CCTV is public domain because a human does not have to initiate the recording. "Without human input" means "without a human deciding when to take the photo/video". "Human input" does not refer to the placement of the camera/device. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|OfTheUsername}} I would say that this is resolved now and that you can add the image. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, I would but I can't find an apt location that wouldn't sandwich text or make the images "unbalanced" on each side. OfTheUsername (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

So recently, I've made a couple of edits changing the deaths to mention who the victims are instead of simplifying it down to just the number 2 in both. While correct, there were 2 deaths and 2 injuries, in a scenario like this, it may be worth including their names in the infobox. My second edit took the example from numerous pages regarding assassinations and attempts where it listed the names of the deceased and injured. One of pages that do this is the page on the 1963 killing of President Kennedy. In that assassination, 2 people were killed and 2 people were injured by a single gunman in two different locations. That is literally identical to what happened here. Yet instead of listing 2 deaths, it says who the deceased are in the infobox as well as who the injured were. Another page that does this is the 1981 shooting of President Reagan. In that page, we read the names of the victims in the infobox which is divided by whether they were killed or injured. It's only when the perpetrator is targeting either random or otherwise unnotable people that we should use numbers. Some assassinations where they are too many victims, then we should use numbers. That would include the 2024 shooting of Former President Donald Trump and the 2015 assassination of a State Senator in South Carolina.

So my question becomes why aren't we doing that with this page? This is easily one of the most notable U.S assassinations in recent years. Half of the victims targeted have their own Wikipedia page. MountainJew6150 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Your reasoning about noteworthiness and number of deaths and injuries seems sound to me. The way the infobox fields have been filled out appears to be to be consistent with the example offered by the Template:Infobox civilian attack but that page does not offer guidance as detailed and thoughtful as what you have laid out here, and as you mentioned the template is used flexibly on similar pages. You mentioned having made edits—were they the edits you propose here? Were they reverted? HussainHx (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, they were reverted. See Special:Diff/1296138299. The edit summary of the revert said {{tpq|per Template:Infobox civilian attack/doc, fatalities – Number of people killed during attack(s); injuries – Number of people injured (excludes those killed) during attack(s). Misuse of these parameters elsewhere should not impact this page}}. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't understand why they're being reverted though. The infoboxes on the other pages I mentioned use Template:Infobox civilian attack. I understand we haven't reached a consensus on this issue but that's the point of WP:BOLD. My edit is bold, but not reckless. There's no real reason to revert such an edit because this is an incident only notable because the targets were notable. People get gunned down in their homes almost every night. So why can't the infobox explicitly mention who those notable targets were? Imagine if the infobox on JFK's assassination only said "2 dead, 2 injured." Nobody would support it. Wikipedia is taking an example from spontaneous civilian attacks such as Sandy Hook when that isn't even a remotely similar incident. We can't use that as an excuse to format it in a way that suggests that it was completely random people that the suspect gunned down. These were renowned politicians. Not the average Tom, Dick, and Harry who were suddenly gunned down in a Walmart parking lot by a terminally online 19-year-old with an AR-15 and no motive.

:::For the record, these retorts are not aimed at you. I just find it a little frustrating that the editors of this page are intentionally trying to make the murder of Melissa Hortman appear as if it were "just another gun violence statistic". Hortman's murder in itself was an anomaly, hence why this page even exists at all. MountainJew6150 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't believe that the intent is to make it seem like a statistic. There are a number of users who prefer consistency throughout all articles.

::::From what I can tell at Template talk:Infobox civilian attack, there was never a discussion that mandated that we use numbers only for the fatalities and injuries. It seems that this originates from the original creator of the template, who added that text back in 2006 during the creation of the template and it has stayed that way up until the present. Perhaps this needs to be a discussion at the template's talk page or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For now though, I will ping {{reply|WWGB|p=|prefix=}} for their thoughts on the matter. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Template:Infobox civilian attack is used in about 6800 articles, ranging from a single death up to 9/11. The template documentation at Template:Infobox civilian attack/doc provides that the Victims field is a descriptor of the victims (eg hostages) rather than naming of the victims. Any article that includes the name of the victims breaches that provision. I don't believe in one-off (or few-off) exceptions. If there is a case to include victim names in the Victims field, thern there should be a discussion or RfC (and consensus) at Template talk:Infobox civilian attack. That would legitimize the Kennedy, Trump etc variations, and pave the way to include names here. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Vance Boelter's letter to the FBI was rambling and conspiratorial, sources with direct knowledge of its contents say. Boelter claimed he was trained by the U.S. military off the books and that Gov. Tim Walz asked him to kill Sen. Amy Klobuchar, others. Boelter claimed he needed to kill Klobuchar so Walz could run for the U.S. Senate. Walz isn't running for the Senate - he opted against it earlier this year and is mulling running for a third term as governor. The letter is incoherent, 1.5 pages long, confusing and hard to read. https://www.startribune.com/vance-boelter-letter-klobuchar-walz-mn-assassination/601376682 2600:1700:E41:E7E0:E8EB:886B:F133:F5B9 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The "Misinformation" section and the "Right-wing conspiracy theories about the suspect" section are essentially the same thing and ought to be combined. 203.211.78.39 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed—I've merged the two sections, renamed it Fringe theories, and made the language more NPOV. In the absence of any official investigation results, language such as conspiracy theories and misinformation seem inappropriate at this time. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Should be called "Right Wing conspiracy theories", as per WP:SPADE. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. "Misinformation" appears in various reliable sources, and the claims made are firmly established as false in the Suspect section, so I will rename this section to "Right-wing misinformation". "Conspiracy theory" applies to some but perhaps not all of the misinformation claims. Fedjmike (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, my mistake. I didn't notice there was already some material on the topic elsewhere. Fedjmike (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Although we're still currently working on the upcoming Vance Boelter draft, I've officially published early life and career information directly from the upcoming draft and into the main Wiki page, at least for now. Once we have the chance to finish the draft, we'll have the information directly onto Vance's own page if necessary. 2600:1702:5225:C010:1CF:FC0B:D6C3:69AE (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been editing the Killing of Brian Thompson article since the shooting happened, and multiple people have tried to try to change it to "Murder of" or "Assassination of". Several times, in multiple move requests and multiple threads, consensus has been formed to exclude the word "assassination" or "murder" until a trial has concluded as doing so would be to call Mangione an assassin or murderer, therefore a WP:BLP vio. Is that not the case here? I've scrolled through the talk page and articles and I see pretty stock arguments where WP:BLP is rarely brought up. guninvalid (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest taking it case by case and looking at the word in context.

:But RS have certainly said that he has been accused of carrying out targeted killings for political reasons.

:I think we probably need to avoid saying in wikivoice that “he totally did it and is guilty”? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)