Talk:2020 boogaloo murders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2020 boogaloo killings)

Correction to date of shooting[edit]

The article has given the date of the shooting as May 30, which was a Saturday. The article cites a source, which clearly says "Friday." That is consistent with other sources. I am therefore editing the article to say May 29. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2020[edit]

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: No consensus. While there is a consensus that this article should be renamed, I don't see a clear consensus for what that name should be. Given that it's been going for almost two months and without a clear consensus on what it should be renamed to, no consensus is the only logical outcome for this particular RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2020 boogaloo killings → ? – Current name implies that some form of boogaloo is currently happening or that the entire Boogaloo movement is responsible. More suited names could be 2020 California police shootings or Steven Carrillo shooting spree, or simply an article about the perpetrator (Steven Carrillo) instead of the event (as in Charles Starkweather) Prism55 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 22:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the current title is simply terrible and confusing, it does not convey the location or nature of the subject whatsoever, and possibly gives false impressions of the amount of actual involvement the amorphous "boogaloo movement" had in the shooting. The current title does not distinguish whether it was a string of serial killings, a one-on-one shooting, a mass shooting, stabbings, or anything encyclopedic or informative to a global audience of readers. Another possible new title could be 2020 Oakland police shootings. RopeTricks (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm open to ideas for a different name. Shootings doesn't take into account that improvised explosive devices were also used. Carrillo also had an accomplice so I don't think it should be named for him. For context, this article was previously named 2020 shootings of Oakland police officers and was deleted at AfD. When it became apparent that the same person was responsible for the bombing and shooting in Ben Lomond the article was restored but needed a different name. The reason I went with boogaloo was because it is mentioned in all of the news articles. He clearly associated himself with the boogaloo movement, owning symbols of the movement and scrawling several boogaloo phrases in his own blood. It seems that his intention *was* to start a boogaloo. I always thought of boogaloo as an ideology rather than a cohesive group. gobonobo + c 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it seems premature to brand these the "boogaloo killings", as it's as yet unclear how relevant that was. But I'm also not sure what the better name is. 2020 California police shootings sounds like it would discuss all police shootings in California in 2020, which is also misleading; as for the other suggested name I'm not sure if it's appropriate to name the article after Carillo before conviction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per discussion below I would support a slightly amended version of El cid, el campeador's suggested title: 2020 attacks on California law enforcement officers. I prefer "attacks" to shootings because this also involved explosives. I do worry a bit that it might read as though it is a list of all attacks of law enforcement officers in California, but the two articles El cid, el campeador mentions (2009 and 2013) at least show this is a pattern we've used before. Also agree with them that, if they are convicted, we could reconsider a move to a title based on the primary perpetrator's name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, now that #Job roles of Oakland victims has been brought up... maybe the proper target would be 2020 attacks on California police and security officers? Certainly not the most concise title, but it's accurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame this has stalled out a bit after being relisted, but for what it's worth I still think "2020 attacks on California police and security officers" is the best option. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think you're right.. hm. Currently we have 2013 shooting of Santa Cruz police officers and 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Something like... 2020 shootings of California law enforcement officers sounds too wordy but is it possible that would answer most concerns? There is still concern re whether the title would lead people to believe the article covered all shootings in California, but I guess that's the best I can come up with. In any case, as you said, following a conviction, the name of the perpetrator may be most suitable. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Until a few minutes ago I hadn't even heard of the term Boogaloo boys. Whatever name this page is moved to, the current name should be left as a redirect, IMHO. 220 of ßorg 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happened about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers, accordingly this page was formerly at that name, which was closed as redirect to a section of the George Floyd protests. 220 of ßorg 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I read, the Oakland shootings were planned. The Ben Lomond shooting was reactionary. It’s possible he intended to ambush the police on Ben Lomond but I haven’t seen anything stating it was pre-planned.
    Everything being shown at this point shows that the two were under different circumstances. Realistically the 2020 Oakland shooting and the 2020 Ben Lomond standoff are two separate articles. At least they should be. Orgotloth (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2020 Oakland federal courthouse shooting perhaps? Like I stated before, the shootout seems to be a result of police going to arrest him. Orgotloth (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There were suggestions to delete the whole article, or to bury it in the middle of a long article on protests. Those ideas were really bad -- now, it looks like we have enough consensus that the article is necessary -- that's my POV, and has been, even when we had only vague suspicions as to the motivation for the killing in Oakland, and even before there was any strong reason to link it to the killing near Santa Cruz. But as Wikipedia editors, we collectively have a hard time with the title. I suggest that whatever title we settle on, we should have redirect pages, so that people who look for the article can find it more easily. As to what title we should use, I don't have much advice to give. Oaklandguy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further thought. How would it be if among the redirect pages, we make one each for Carrillo, Underwood, and Gutwiller? Oaklandguy (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All reasonable suggestions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any update on a possible consensus? Love of Corey (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest restarting the RFC; more recent sources (which came out after most of the opinions in this RFC were registered) unambiguously quote federal authorities in tying the killings to the boogaloo movement; furthermore, most recent coverage makes this the primary focus by which the killings are discussed, which makes it a reasonable name. See [1][2] --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given recent reporting. Aquillion is right that we need to restart the RFC (or dispense with it altogether) given that the most recent coverage has a primary focus on boogaloo. Neutralitytalk 21:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but would consider a new RM if someone has a definite proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Meme[edit]

Posting on the talk page as I have already reverted MWise12 a few times over at Boogaloo movement, but this seems inappropriate to include in the article:

An ABC investigation found that on May 31, Carillo reposted a meme on his Facebook page that said, "I'll never let racist white people make me forget about the dope white people I know exist. I love y'all." and himself wrote, "The only race that matters, the human race."

For one, it's currently uncited. But I also fail to see why quoting a meme Carillo posted to his Facebook page is anything even approaching encyclopedic. It appears to be a part of an agenda being pushed by MWise12 that the boogaloo movement is not far right, based on blatant original research. MWise's edit summary when reverting it back into boogaloo movement was: It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I spoke too soon. Looks like Gobonobo just reverted it as I was writing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a single repost of a meme is even remotely relevant. gobonobo + c 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC report found it appropriate to include this information, so it's fitting that this page can include it. I'm trying to get factual information across so people aren't misled to believe this was a far right attack before the facts come out, which your summary of events does. MWise12 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was saying about WP:OR... GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be ignoring facts that suggest this was not a far-right attack, while there is public information reported on mainstream outlets that contradicts the idea of it being right wing. As the page is currently written, the average reader would think this was a far right attack due to how you've portrayed the term "boogaloo". MWise12 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am attempting to not clutter up Wikipedia articles with detailed descriptions of which memes Carillo saw fit to post to his Facebook page. If one news outlet wants to publish that, that's their prerogative, but unless it receives wider coverage it does not seem to be relevant here.
The attack is not being called far-right anywhere in this article; I don't believe any motivations for the attack have even been mentioned in the news. So far all that has been said is that Carillo is believed to have been associated with the boogaloo movement, which is accurately described here as it is at boogaloo movement as far-right. Whether Carillo is far-right, or was motivated by those ideologies, afaik is unknown and therefore is rightfully not being described one way or the other here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way this article is written, the average reader looking at this article will see the the claim that this shooter was connected to the so-called "far right" boogaloo movement and, with no motive being given anywhere else here, assume they were motivated by some kind of far-right goal. We have direct evidence to the contrary. So this page, as it stands, is woefully misleading in its structure. MWise12 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one here that believes a meme reposted on Facebook is "direct evidence" in any direction. We do not do that kind of original research here on Wikipedia. If a reliable source wants to draw those kinds of conclusions from his meme we could begin to consider including it, but even then it would be iffy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're again ignoring the misleading nature of how this article is currently written. Also, the ABC7 report certainly found it fitting to include that information in their coverage of Cardillo.
In any case, there is also this report from ABC that gives us insight, where a friend of Carrillo is interviewed.[1] From this report; "Justin Ehrhardt, a former friend of Carrillo who served in the Air Force with him before his retirement, told The Mercury News that Carrillo considered himself a libertarian and may have been pushed over the edge following police use of force during protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes in Minneapolis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWise12 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objections to the information about him possibly being a libertarian being included, so long as it's properly attributed in-text as a quote from his friend. My objection is to including descriptions of his memes in a Wikipedia article. I don't think we should include the Floyd protests portion, though, as that seems to be speculative on his friend's part. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWise12: You cannot just copy-and-paste wholesale from source material like you just did. WP:COPYVIO GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that MWise says here helps their case at all. Their effort seems to be to muddy the waters. Yes, this is OR. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/airman-face-death-penalty-california-cop-killing-71230928

Lead should not be misleading[edit]

Until there is a motive determined for the attacks, the lead should not make mentions of "far right extremism". It will cause readers to wrongly assume a right wing motive that has not been proven or even indicated. MWise12 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should describe briefly what the boogaloo movement is, as it is not a widely-known term. To go with the wording that has been agreed upon (until your recent objections) at the boogaloo movement article is SOP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything whatsoever to say about the point I'm making in regards to how it misleads readers? MWise12 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, I just undid your removal of the mention of the movement from the lead—it makes no sense to then mention the stuff in the van when there's no mention of the movement at all. If all mentions of the boogaloo movement are saved for the body of the article, that's fine too, but it makes no sense to leave a partial mention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not misleading to write that Carrillo is associated with the boogaloo movement, and then to briefly describe the movement in the same way it is described by the weight of sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI confirmed Carrillo's association with boogaloo; it should really remain in the lede. A brief description is also warranted for those who don't know what it is. Most of the references I am seeing are saying 'far right' or 'alt-right' See Dr. Lawrence Rosenthal, director for the Center for Right-Wing Studies at UC Berkeley, said the movement’s origins are rooted in the history of the militia right in the United States, holding that “patriots” will rise up and lead to a second civil war." gobonobo + c 03:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: You might be interested to read Talk:Boogaloo_movement#A_source_for_the_edit_requests_regarding_varying_views (scroll down a few paras, the thread was revived today after being started a week or two ago). MWise12 has been attempting to have the "far-right" mention removed from the first sentence there as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWise12: Per WP:BRD: You made a bold change, were reverted (fully here), and then started this discussion. But the idea of the "discuss" part is to come to some agreement before making your change again, not re-make it anyway even when someone else has weighed in at the discussion to agree that the short description is appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare My problem is and continues to be that the current wording of this article will lead readers to believe that Carrillo performed these attacks for some kind of "right wing" cause. The dispute here isn't the definition of the boogaloo movement, it's the way it's presented in regards to these events. In the very boogalooo movement page it's clarified that groups associated with the term are not exclusively right wing, there's no reason that can't be clarified here as well if the right wing part is included. MWise12 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you have made your concern quite clear. But that does not mean you should edit war your changes in, particularly when two people have disagreed that the wording is misleading. If it turns out that Carrillo was associated with a boogaloo group with more specific politics (in any direction, be it libertarian, white supremacist, anti-racist, whatever) then we should mention that. But right now all we know is that he's associated with the movement in general, and so we should briefly describe the movement in general. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So your response to my problem with the presentation of the lead is to simply ignore it utterly. MWise12 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If spending several hours of my evening explaining my objections to your edits is "ignoring you utterly" I don't know what to tell you. I don't know how to more clearly explain to you that I think describing the boogaloo movement in general, when he is associated with that movement in general, and there is no indication that he is associated with some specific subgroup that is different from the general movement, is not misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your "brief definition" of the Boogaloo movement here conveniently leaves out how it's not exclusively right wing, which is indicated literally in the fourth sentence of the lead of that page. MWise12 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, because it's supposed to be brief (and readable, which your most recent change was not). It is standard to include a brief description (not four sentences' worth) of a term and then wikilink it for people who need more information. Again, I get that you disagree with me and Gobonobo, but that does not mean you should just go re-make the change anyway—especially considering I already left you an edit warring notice earlier tonight, so you're certainly familiar with the concept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In more recent sources, federal authorities unambiguously state their motives:
  • Washington Post: For a little over a week, the crime was a mystery. Was it tied to the protests just blocks away? Even after the suspected killer was dramatically caught in the nearby mountains eight days later, his motive was murky. Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that’s exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month.
  • kron4: The complaint details Carrillo’s state of mind and motive when he allegedly went on a mission to kill cops. “Boogaloo” is a growing group of online extremists that aim to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread their radical views and spark a civil war. The FBI said Carrillo conspired with other “boogaloo boys” online to use the Oakland George Floyd demonstration as a cover for the crime and to escape. The FBI said followers of the Boogaloo ideology identify as militia and “share a narrative of inciting a violent uprising against perceived government tyranny.”
Seems pretty straightforward now, so we have to update the article to reflect this. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motive[edit]

GorillaWarfare In regards to motive, I found this; "The complaint points to Carrillo’s Facebook posts, in which he voiced support for violence against law enforcement and made references to the Boogaloo movement, as evidence of his motivation."

It then continues... "In an exchange between Carrillo and Justus — posted to an unspecified Facebook group the morning before the Oakland attack — Carrillo allegedly commented, “It’s on our coast now, this needs to be nationwide. It’s a great opportunity to target the specialty group soup bois.” The term “soup bois” is commonly used by Boogaloo followers to refer to federal agents."

We then have Carrillo's former friend Justin Ehrhardt's statements from the interview here where Ehrehardt said "Excessive use of force on unarmed civilians — that was a huge thing for him,” Ehrhardt told The Mercury News. “It was a mental tipping point for him.” Ehrhardt imagined it was Carrillo’s way of saying, “If I’m going to fight for something, it’s going to be against the establishment.”

With all of these facts together, I think we get a decent view of the motive. This appears like it was an extreme anti-government libertarian who snapped upon seeing many media reports of what he viewed as police brutality. MWise12 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but we can't write Wikipedia articles based on conclusions we draw from our own interpretations of a person's Facebook posts (WP:SYNTH, WP:OR). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the California police are saying his Facebook posts are what lead them to believe his motivation. That makes them directly relevant. MWise12 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to where the FBI has described his motives? If they have announced what they believe to be his motives then we can use that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke, it was the California police who filed the criminal complaint, which spoke about his Facebook posts. It's summarized here. https://www.startribune.com/fbi-facebook-exchange-preceded-deadly-attack-on-officer/571300782/ MWise12 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not really sure what we could add based on that. Their conclusions from the Facebook posts seem to be that a) he was connected with the boogaloo movement, b) he planned to target law enforcement, and c) he planned to attack during the protests. All of those facts are mentioned in the article already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can add the text of his posts for additional detail to the article and give readers more insight. MWise12 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that's excessive detail, but if others here think it's a good idea I won't stand in your way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt right[edit]

@Love of Corey: Is there a source anywhere that's connected these attacks or the people involved with the alt right? I know the alleged perpetrators have been connected with the boogaloo movement, and some boogaloo groups are alt right, but unless there is a (sourced) indication that the perpetrators were specifically affiliated with an alt right boogaloo group (or connected to the alt right in some other way) the {{alt-right}} template should probably be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the template because the entry was already in there to begin with, so I thought it'd be appropriate. Love of Corey (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dang, I missed that. I think it ought to be removed from the template also—I'll do that and leave a pointer to this conversation on the template talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His motives were definitely not alt right in the same sense that the alt right page expresses it, if anything he is more libertarian left. He is/was very against white supremacy in all forms and pro immigration. Many if not all things labeled under alt-right he absolutely is not. Orgotloth (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And gravity doesn't exist, I got a unicorn nearby, and up is down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.83.15 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the George Floyd protests template[edit]

Should the {{George Floyd protests}} template be included on this page? While the perpetrators of this attack apparently used the protests as an opportune moment to ambush law enforcement officers, I'm not sure that warrants including the template.

I also started a discussion at Template talk:George Floyd protests#Inclusion of 2020 boogaloo killings to discuss the inclusion of this article in that template, which I feel more strongly about. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of the tag here, as these killings were directly connected to the nearby protests/riots/unrest etc. happening in Oakland at the time. MWise12 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The connection was not direct, per the FBI. Also the second attack had nothing to do with the protests. Let's leave the template off. gobonobo + c 07:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I argue the connection is direct because 1) The killings were chosen at this time/place directly because of the protests/riots in the area and 2) Carillo's friend's statements that Carillo's mental tipping point was "excessive use of force against unarmed civilians". MWise12 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did read what Gobonobo wrote, right? Love of Corey (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Job roles of Oakland victims[edit]

There's apparently some confusion in the media as to how to describe the Oakland victims. For example, a source used in the article -- Whiting, Sam (June 1, 2020). "Federal Protective Service Officer Fatally Shot in Oakland Identified". www.officer.com. Retrieved June 1, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) -- uses "Federal Protective Service Officer" in the headline/caption and "security guard" several times in the body. I believe that FBI's Criminal Complaint can help with the clarity. The victims are described as follows on page 4 of the PDF:

Murder and Attempted Murder of Federal Courthouse Guards on May 29, 2020
At approximately 9:44 PM on May 29, 2020, a passenger inside of a white van opened fire and shot two Protective Security Officers (PSOs) at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Oakland, California (“the Federal Courthouse”). One of the PSOs (Victim 1) died of his gunshot wounds; the other (Victim 2) sustained serious injuries that required surgery. The PSOs were working in an official capacity for Triple Canopy Inc., which is contracted with the Federal Protective Service to provide security at the Federal Building and Federal Courthouse. Source: Criminal Complaint.

Privately-contracted security officers are not employees of the Federal Protective Service, nor are they part of Law enforcement in the United States. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Good catch. I'm not seeing anything that says Underwood was a law enforcement officer. The officer.com article seems to go into the most detail, saying he was a security guard, and that he worked in various federal buildings for nine years. The language should be updated to say something along the lines of "two Triple Canopy security officers contracted with the Federal Protective Service... " Language in the lede should also be modified to clarify that he was not a law enforcement officer. gobonobo + c 08:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking this to the boogaloo movement is false and part of an active attack on boogaloo movement[edit]

I will say this. I met Carrillo personally a few times, I talked to him quite often. His goals were not boogaloo related, they were directly related to the actions of the police that killed George Floyd. He snapped when that happened, it still messes with me that I had no idea what he was up to. While he definitely was part of the boogaloo movement I’d think naming this the “boogaloo killings” is as incorrect as naming the the “George Floyd revenge killings”. Both would be misnomers and both would be a disservice to the things they represent. Orgotloth (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did this wrong, I’m not well versed in how wiki works. I apologize. Orgotloth (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orgotloth: There is a requested move discussion happening above (at #Requested move 16 June 2020), if you want to leave your input there. Right now consensus is pretty clear that the article should not be titled "2020 boogaloo killings", though there's some difficulty in determining a better name.
While the title is likely to change, the fact remains that the FBI has clearly announced they believe Carrillo was a part of the boogaloo movement, so it's unlikely that we will remove that piece of information from the article unless the FBI retracts it or reliable sources publish conflicting information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare It absolutely makes sense to include the boogaloo movement as being an influence for him. My only contention was stating that these were “boogaloo killings”

I definitely think it would insincere to suggest that he didn’t find inspiration from the boog groups. Orgotloth (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, and I agree. Hopefully the RM will close soon and the article can be moved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No original research[edit]

In regards to the change Gobonobo keeps trying to make, please read the WP:OR page. By the rules, it's not our place as editors to give our opinions on whether outlets were mistaken in their coverage of certain incidents or not. You need to be citing reliable sources to include statements. I hope that the administrator watching this page, GorillaWarfare, will correct this edit Gobonobo keeps trying to make. MWise12 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: administrators do not hold more sway in editorial decisions than any other editor, and I am in no way "in charge" of this page or anything like that. I am certainly not going to continue an ongoing edit war, either (nor am I going to intervene administratively to stop it—I am WP:INVOLVED as an active editor of this page—but I would strongly encourage those involved to stop). It is time for discussion, not more reverts. Pinging Gobonobo to make them aware of this discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Just to wrap up my point here, if we were to scour the internet we could find all kinds of sources who say wildly different things about many different events. The policy explains that we don't include which ones were wrong unless reliable sources directly confirm and note they were wrong, in large part because doing so ourselves is arbitrary. I actually personally dislike this policy for a few reasons, but it is what it is and we have to abide by it. MWise12 (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree that this should be accompanied by a reliable source commenting on the conservative outlets' mischaracterization of the attacks. If that exists, this issue should be wrapped up pretty easily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor, Soibangla, just added this claim to Boogaloo movement along with a secondary source. I'll copy the same over to this. I put them in the "Investigation" section for now, though they might belong better in a "Reactions" section or similar. I just didn't want to split out that section without providing an overview of the general reaction to the attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help - Related Wiki Project - Anthony Brennan, III 'Bike Tyson' Maryland Bike Path Attacks[edit]

I made an article for this June 1 incident citing over a dozen mainstream media reports entirely about the incident, Brennan, and the fallout. Both the Maryland Attorney General and DC Mayor commented on the incident. Two innocent men were wrongfully accused online and doxxed; I cited 4 articles focusing on that aspect, that also highlighted the original incident.

I submitted one article focused on Brennan, which was rejected for lack of notability and not enough sources focused on the subject. I reworked the article, making it more about the incident and fallout, and this was also rejected by the same editor for the same reasons.

Any advice is appreciated. My draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maryland_Bike_Path_Attack_on_Activists Gorkelobb (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible images from released federal documents[edit]

Hi! I believe that most public records from federal agencies are in the public domain. I notice that this page has very few images, and this could be fixed with the images from this Justice Department press release. However, there may be complexities that I'm unaware of, as things get tricky once you get to court documents. Jlevi (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the final say on whether the images are usable up to someone more versed in copyright than I am. However if they are, and assuming the iconography in the photo doesn't have some other restriction, that picture of the boogaloo patch on page 16 would be a great addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

Do we even know if the two events were closely enough linked to warrent being covered in the same article?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of the sources describe the two events together, so I think it makes sense that the article reflects that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the media coverage like that but it seems like it is.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism[edit]

I can't find any justification for catergorizing this terrorism. There is no discussion of this in the article. The guideline is: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Where are the reliable sources calling this terrorism?Nweil (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion of the terrorism classification in the article. Whether that's sufficient for inclusion in the category, I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I see in the article: 1) statement by acting DHS sec Ken Cuccinelli - first of all this is not an "expert" or scholarly analysis (he is a bureaucrat), nor is it a statement under oath or anything like that. Furthermore, the federal government didn't end up charging Carillo or Justus with terrorism so his words are empty. 2) you have a statement from Fox News Anchor Eric Swan despite fox news talk shows being considered "generally unreliable" on WP:RSP. 3) and finally a statement from Donald Trump. Again not expert or scholarly analysis and he has encouraged Antifa to be classified as domestic terrorists as well. Wikipedia editors do not seem to think his statements on this subject have weight judging from other articles.Nweil (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're probably right that it's insufficient. I've removed the categories and the "partof" in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category Murder[edit]

There is a conversation about whether or not categorizing this and many other articles as murder is appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings#Category:murder I welcome anyone's input.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_boogaloo_murders&oldid=1197969856"