Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti

Should this article mention Pretti's video recorded confrontation with DHS agents that occured eleven days before his shooting in the "Background" section?

1. Include information on this event in the "Background" section of this article. (In another section such as the "Investigation" section, this information may be linked back to, but does not necessarily need to be described in detail twice)
2. Don't include information on this event in the "Background" section of this article (However, it may be mentioned in a different section)
3. (new option) Don't include, but refer: Don't include detailed information on this event in the background section, but instead refer readers in the section to the info by placing a sentence such as "After the shooting, investigators found a video of a confrontation between Pretti and federal agents, see Investigations section" in the "Background" section

There is no option here to not mention this video at any point in the article, because I did not see anyone suggest that in the previous sections, but that can still be suggested.

See Talk:Killing_of_Alex_Pretti#Pretti's_previous_altercation_with_ICE_not_mentioned for a previous discussion.

ALittleClass (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include. (On mobile) The primary argument advanced by those who would exclude is that this is a fact that arose after the fact and is therefore not truly background, but instead belongs in Investigation or Response/Reaction. The problem with that is that every single detail in the article, from the date and place of birth to the schools attended, to the career path, to the Renee Good protests, etc., emerged after the shooting, because Mr. Pretti was not encyclopedically notable until he was killed. Others would exclude based on the risk that mentioning the prior confrontation may be construed as justifying the shooting, even though there is no evidence the shooters knew of this prior event, or attempting to establish a causal link between the two confrontations (i.e., that the officers would not have shot but for the prior event, or that had Mr. Pretti been arrested, he would not have been present to be shot, etc.). This is a legitimate concern and that risk should be mitigated through careful wording, not suppression of the occurrence altogether or illogical placement. It cannot be convincingly argued, IMHO, that the fact that Pretti was disturbed by the Renee Good killing and demonstrated to protest that killing belongs in the Background, but the fact that he had a physical confrontation with immigration enforcement agents in one such demonstration belongs elsewhere or nowhere at all. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include - To me it seems that this is exactly the kind of information that should be included in a section outlining background information. Readers need truthful context, excluding this information does not give readers an accurate timeline (aka, backround) information of events.

MaximusEditor (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include in background. I think it's a bit disingenuous that, as of the current revision, the background section says that Pretti had participated in protests prior to his killing but willfully excludes the details regarding his involvement—details that have been reported on. It almost feels like POV pushing. The prior incident can certainly be worded in such a way that doesn't not infer a connection to his killing (from suggestions in this discussion, stating that videos arose of the incident following his death, or something akin to Placeholder's suggestion). TheAlienAdventures (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Include, specifically in the "Alex Pretti" subsection, with as much context as possible about the broader protest in which the incident took place. The confrontation during which this incident took place was quite significant among confrontations between ICE and civilians in Minnesota. During this event, Over 100 observers confronted agents as they performed door-to-door raids in Powderhorn Park. This was the same incident where Aliyah Rahman, an uninvolved bystander, was dragged from her car and brutalized by ICE. According to this article, which will be an indispensable source for dealing with this material, Two other observers were arrested but Pretti (who was not identified at the time) managed to avoid capture. I think that there are two key things to avoid implying in presenting this material. We don't want to give the appearance that Pretti was known to the public or to ICE agents prior to his killing. We also need to give the reader enough context about the events of that day to assess Pretti's decision to kick the taillight of a federal vehicle, so they can make an informed judgment as to what it says about him and the circumstances of his killing. I would suggest something along the lines of the following language:

"Pretti participated in protests against ICE following the killing of Renée Good earlier in January 2026. His father told reporters that Pretti acknowledged warnings from his parents to be careful while protesting. After his killing, Pretti was identified as having been present at a January 13 confrontation between over 100 observers and ICE agents conducting door-to-door raids in Powderhorn Park. During this confrontation, ICE repeatedly used chemical irritants against protestors, forcefully detained a bystander on her way to a medical appointment and arrested two observers. In a video from the confrontation, a man later identified as Pretti can be seen kicking the taillight of an ICE vehicle before being tackled to the ground by agents. He was not arrested during the incident." Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia’s Background section should provide context leading up to an event without delving into detailed incident-level developments that belong in narrative or factual sections like Investigation, Incidents, or Sequence of events. Material that is tangential to the core background — such as newly released footage of a prior confrontation — can be referenced briefly with a pointer to a more appropriate section where fuller detail is covered. This approach maintains focus in the Background and avoids overloading it with actionable evidence or investigative material that postdates the core narrative events. Wikipedia guidelines on article structure emphasize chronology and relevance, keeping background contextual and relating detailed evidence to specific sections (e.g., Investigation, Controversies) where readers can find the complete account. Putting analytic or evidentiary content elsewhere also conforms with the guideline that Background should not contain substantive details of later controversies or disputes (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and structuring guidelines). Recommended text revision for the Background section Add a brief sentence such as: Eleven days before his fatal shooting, video of a separate confrontation between Pretti and federal immigration agents in Minneapolis later surfaced; further information about this encounter is described in the Investigation section. Place the full description of that earlier confrontation — including the circumstances of the video released and statements from family representatives and attorneys — in a dedicated section (for example, Preceding altercation or Investigation) where chronology and evidentiary details are appropriate. DangerousEagles (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Include or Don't include, but refer. For context, I had initially added a mention of this confrontation in this section and linked to the "Investigation" page where there was more detail, although this is not currently on the article. I didn't put an option to not include information of this event at all in the article because I did not see anyone with that opinion in the original discussion, although it's still possible to suggest it.
  I believe that, as an event occurring shortly before the killing, it makes the most sense chronologically to put it in the background section, especially since there are already two sentences about Pretti's participation in the protests. I believe also that it has been covered enough in reliable sources that it is proportionate to include it. Some users could object (although I personally don't strongly believe this) that including the line "His father told reporters that Pretti acknowledged warnings from his parents to be careful while protesting" in this section, while not including this event, compromises the neutral point of view of this section, if they believe Pretti was not being "careful" in this incident.
  Some users have argued that including it here would bias the article against Pretti, or otherwise color the perception of the reader about the shooting. I don't believe this would happen if the section is worded neutrally. For example, I have seen this video, and yet don't believe that minor vandalism of a government vehicle over a week prior could justify being shot multiple times after being disarmed (also without showing any aggression immediately prior). I think this is the correct place for the information to be, and therefore do not think we need to overprotect the reader from it.

[Update on 20:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC): I initially only had "include" listed, but I would also would support the option of "Don't include, but refer" that I have added into the RFC. However, in both of these options I support having some mention of this in the background section.] ALittleClass (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include in background. Firstly, slight clarification. The info was in a sub-section labeled Alex Pretti within the Background section. Because the section bears Pretti's name and is the only place to put biog info, it has tended to fill up with quite a bit of info about Pretti most of which is not necessary to understanding the shooting. So one possibility is moving the 'Pretti' section out of 'Background', in which case including this prior incident briefly in a biog section would be less objectionable. As currently ordered though, the info has no justification to be in background , which AFA possible should only include info essential to understanding the circumstances of the shooting (Immigration policy, ICE operations, widespread protests etc). As it stands, I cannot see how this previous incident is any more relevant than (for example) if Pretti was known to have cheated on his ex-wife or rode his bicycle without working lights. If true, neither would show Pretti in a great light, but neither would have any relevance to the shooting. Pretti appears to have behaved fairly angrily on a prior ocassion when confronting a different set of agents. Unless one is seeking to portray that as some sort of justification, I cannot see how this is necessary background info to the shooting (and WP:RS don't present it as relevant). Pincrete (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC) addendum A note referring forward (option 3) is something I would not object to as second choice. This option was not available when I left my original comment. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Not presenting as relevant" seems more like... a book on body building with a chapter on Schwarzenegger that doesn't mention his acting or time as governor. The only reason anyone is talking about the prior incident is because of the subsequent shooting. Whether someone thinks that's relevant because it may speak to a larger issue with some pattern regarding the action of ICE or the actions of Pretti is neither here nor there. GMG^talk 14:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand the point being made, but a book on body building with a chapter on Schwarzenegger that doesn't mention his acting or time as governor or that only mentioned these very minimally or late in the chapter mentioned that he went on to other pursuits might be a very good book on body building. AFAIK, this article is about Pretti's shooting, not about tangentially related previous interactions. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  The point being that there isn't some other context in which sources could be presenting this information. Using our hypothetical a book on Arnold for content at Governor of California would be content that isn't "presented it as relevant" by the source. The confrontation between Pretti/ICE is very much presented as relevant. Pretti isn't known for anything else. GMG^talk 13:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's true about anything involving this case. If Pretti had not been shot, Trump, the administration and others would not have said/done many of the things they did, but that in itself doesn't qualify the actions/words as 'background'. If we find out later that Pretti had committed/been accused of some offence somewhere in his past, are we going to make that background simply because it would never have come to light unless he had been shot? Obviously not, because the article is about the shooting and there is no reason to think that the 'past offence' is remotely relevant to that shooting. Whether things in Pretti's past present him in a good light or a bad light are wholly immaterial to the event, partly because no one, including the agents, knew or cared what he might have done even half an hour before he was shot. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  ...remotely relevant... It's relevant in almost every possible way. Same city. Same protests. Same agency. Same policy. Otherwise parallel circumstances. One of the few imaginable ways it could be more relevant is if we had some specific agent tweeting a picture of Pretti saying "Fuck this guy in particular. Someone should definitely shoot him."

  Whether the information ultimately belongs in the background section or not, the argument you're making isn't a justification. You're just resting your laurels on hyperbole and demanding a application of "relevance" well beyond what the sources are using. GMG^talk 13:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. The description in this RfC is incomplete. This information already exists in the Investigation section. The actual question is whether to move it from the Investigation section to the Background section. I encourage @ALittleClass to modify the wording of the RfC to make this clear. If it's moved to the Background section, there is also a disagreement about whether is should be placed in the Alex Pretti subsection or the Operation Metro Surge subsection. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, it would have been good to include a link to the RFCBEFORE discussion. That discussion is above, Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti § Pretti's previous altercation with ICE not mentioned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I believe the goal of the RfC is not to move it from Investigation to Background, rather, it’s to have it appear in both sections. Mikewem (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's possible, and there, too, it would be good if that were made clear in the RfC. As it stands, newcomers to this discussion don't know about the existing content in the Investigations section.

  And if the info is going to appear in two places, it would be good for the RfC to ask people about how it gets split between the two sections. It makes no sense to me to have the same info twice. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include. Shouldn't be an exhaustive account of the incident, but a sentence or half after Pretti participated in protests against the killing of Renée Good earlier in January 2026 is pretty clearly warranted. Though it's worth discussing what to include in such a mention Placeholderer (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think a short mention in the Alex Pretti subsection doesn't prevent a longer mention in Investigation or Reactions or wherever, but I don't feel strongly at this point about if/where to include more Placeholderer (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include. As far as we know at this time, Pretti wasn't known to ICE prior to his killing. This means that Pretti's prior interactions are not relevant to this event. It makes more sense to include in the Investigation or Response.
  I must also note that there are TWO prior RfCs on this talk page. This constitutes the THIRD. Both resulted in consensus not to include in the background. I hate to wonder this but is this going up for RfC over and over again until a smaller number of editors get their way? Even people in favor of include do point out that his prior interactions were unknown to ICE at the time of his killing. They became known days later as analysis came out. We don't want to introduce hindsight bias into this or any article.
  Saying in the background that he engaged in protests is one thing but making claims or suggestions that his protesting 11 days before his killing led to his death are not accurate and would lead to WP:SYNTH concerns. Bill Heller (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  With all due respect there's no reasonable interpretation of "let's mention a recent altercation in 'background'" that jumps to "let's say that it's what got him killed". And what previous RfCs are you referring to? Placeholderer (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  There were no previous RfCs. There were previous discussions, one of which I noted above. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  You're right. I should have been more clear on this. There were two previous discussions that looked (to me) like RfCs but were not formatted as RfCs. My above comment could be summarized as: "I don't think we should include but if we do choose to include, we should be extraordinarily careful to ensure that the viewer does not see these two events as linked because the ICE folks made it clear shortly after the shooting that they were unaware of Pretti prior to the day that he died. It later came out that he had been involved in a prior altercation." Bill Heller (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  RFCs aren't about formatting. They're about whether the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process is used to advertise a discussion via pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and processes like Wikipedia:Feedback request service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  That will be news for quite a lot of people because the majority of RfCs I've seen have not been "advertised" on discussion pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Perhaps they should be but they are not. Bill Heller (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  This RfC is advertised on Politics, government, and law; Biographies; and Society, sports, and culture. It all depends on which RfC categories are chosen among WP:RFCCAT. All RfCs are also advertised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I did not see a strong consensus either way in the previous talk pages. When I suggested an RFC, I got two responses saying that it would be a good idea. I initially thought the suggesters consisted of one "Include" and one "Don't Include" (in background), but on second inspection, both of them were actually on the "Include" side. However, this is still just a measure to try and build consensus more clearly. ALittleClass (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include but refer We should, of course, avoid WP:SYNTH, and place the information carefully in it's right context. For example if the information is covered in the investigation or response section, the background section might reasonably refer to it "Pretti had been involved in protests for some time, a video was later brought up in the investigation of (or response to) the killing." All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC).
  
• Include obviously. It is absurd to say that we should say "he had never been arrested before" and yet refrain from mentioning that less than two weeks prior he had been violently engaged in a very similar protest. It's relevant context and if this weren't so politically charged, this wouldn't be a discussion at all. Red Slash 18:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  We don't say "he had never been arrested before", we say that he did not have a criminal record, (which is true) and sourced I believe to the local police chief. I have no idea whether Pretti had ever been arrested, or should/could have been arrested and fail to see the relevance anyhow. Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Of course you're right. Forget I said that.

  It is absurd to say that we should say "he had no criminal record" and yet refrain from mentioning that less than two weeks prior he had been violently engaged in a very similar protest. Red Slash 19:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which frankly is implying "he had no criminal record, but should/could have had one" . To the extent that is true, how does that relate to an interaction with completely different agents under different circumstances. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  You're the one implying "but should/could have had one", that is up for any reader to decide for themselves upon reading the facts as reported by many reliable sources on his actions and behavior in a similar circumstance concerning the victim of this article in the days preceding his death. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have no idea whether Pretti had ever been arrested, or should/could have been arrested and fail to see the relevance anyhow leads you to conclude that I'm implying that he should have had one a criminal record? Novel! Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which frankly is implying "he had no criminal record, but should/could have had one"

  Who is implying that? Yourself. Novel indeed. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps you mean inferring, not implying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  ?? The one who used Implying was him. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I know. But if Peter Person says "this writing by Paula Persona implies X," Peter is not himself implying X; rather, Paula is implying X and Peter is inferring X from what Paula wrote. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  In my opinion in this setup it is more as though Paula is giving a fact as report by secondary sources and Peter is saying that the fact is 'implying' something; no it isn't and by saying so Peter is the only one implying anything. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, Peter is saying that the fact is implying something, but that doesn't mean that Peter himself is implying something. It means that Peter has inferred something from the fact. Which is why Pincrete questioned you about what you wrote. But I won't respond further, as this is a small point. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Peter, or a reader, is allowed to infer whatever they want from the fact and that would never be a reason to not include it. That isn't our concern. We provide what reliable sources say; the readers infer what they will from that which will not a be a monolith. I understand you may be worried that talking about this event will somehow color a reader's perception of the shooting but frankly that isn't our concern and goes towards astroturfing. Purpose of the article is to inform the reader and not shape their opinion by selectively withholding facts. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  It is absolutely our responsibility to avoid writing text from which a reasonable reader might infer something that isn't true - or even not supported - to the best of our ability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC).
  

  I agree keeping in mind that even what a 'reasonable' person would infer is somewhat subjective. But that goes as much for omitting warranted information per wiki policies as it does for including information that is unwarranted per policy. That is to say you can give the reader the wrong impression by omitting info that should be included as much as by including information that shouldn't be.

  In this case, failure to include the January 13th video in the background threatens to give a reasonable reader the wrong impression as to the nature and objective of Pretti's presence on the day he was killed.

  I would say the article is already pretty clearly misleading in the opposite direction as it merely describes Pretti as, "was filming law enforcement agents with his phone and directing traffic. At one point, he stood between an agent and a woman whom the agent had pushed to the ground, putting his arm around the woman". That already gives almost gives the impression Pretti was a happen stance bystander by its omission that he wasn't authorized to direct traffic, was standing in the road against the effort of agents who were actively trying to get people like Pretti out of the road, and neglects to mention he stiff armed the officer trying to get the woman who was also in the road out of the road... So if we are going to talk about misleading the 'reasonable reader' I think the article is doing that already with the tilt being rather obvious by virtue of its omissions and now people are arguing to keep things omitted to keep the current slant... Guile's Theme (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  threatens to give a reasonable reader the wrong impression as to the nature and objective of Pretti's presence on the day he was killed enlighten us, what was his real purpose? I understood that he was there to record the actions of ICE agents and to do his best (within the law) to protest them. Where have we got this wrong and what source claims anything other than that he was acting within his constitutional and legal rights on the day of the shooting?

  Already … almost gives the impression Pretti was a happen stance bystander by its omission that he wasn't authorized to direct traffic AFAI am aware, no source has claimed that Pretti lacked authority to help keep traffic moving, or that it would be remotely relevant if he didn't. Perhaps the agents should have arrested him for Jaywalking, ⸮⸮ Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  enlighten us, what was his real purpose?

  Not my place to say or determine, but the video is relative to illustrating it, giving context, and people can draw their own conclusions from the facts of the matter.

  AFAI am aware, no source has claimed that Pretti lacked authority to help keep traffic moving

  Which is why it isn't included in the article even though it is as a fact 100% true he didn't have the right or authority to be standing in the road and I've never argued it should be as it hasn't been stated officially by a reliable source as of yet. But then it is only more strange than when so many sources reported the Jan 13th video and all only in connection/relevancy to the topic of the article then it 'somehow' doesn't merit inclusion. Very strange.

  Perhaps the agents should have arrested him for Jaywalking

  Maybe, that or obstruction of federal agents, CNN transcript makes it clear Pretti and the 2 woman were being told to stay out of the road and they were standing in it anyway;

  "We now want to turn your attention to the second officer wearing a tan beanie. According to a report from Customs and Border Protections investigative body, officers ordered these female civilians and later Pretti, to move out of the roadway, and they did not."

  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/tsiem/date/2026-01-30/segment/02? Guile's Theme (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I note it says "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED " Doug Weller talk 10:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  "The CBPO ordered the female civilians to move out of the roadway, and the female civilians did not move. The CBPO pushed them both away and one of the females ran to a male, later identified as 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a US citizen," the report states."

  It certainly seems confirmed in reliable sources that the agents were telling people to stay out of the road.

  https://abc7.com/post/dhs-report-says-2-agents-fired-weapons-alex-pretti-shooting/18487676/

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-federal-agents-fired-their-weapons-during-alex-pretti-shooting-report-congress-says/?Guile's Theme (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, and? Not clearing the roadway when ordered to do so even by federal law enforcement is not an invitation to be assaulted via being shoved to the ground and then pepper sprayed while down there. It is also not a reason to be shot and killed while being dogpiled.

  And I’m used to seeing this kind of enforcement from the NYPD ESU at protests outside of the Javits Federal building near my work. Even they’re more restrained than these CBP officers were. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not clearing the roadway when ordered to do so even by federal law enforcement is not an invitation to be assaulted via being shoved to the ground and then pepper sprayed while down there.

  I'm not a legal expert and even if I were making such pronouncements would be OR. Although I'd keep in mind if they were deemed to be obstructing federal agents that is a Felony; which I assume you could get assaulted for. It is just the fact of what was occurring at the time wasn't merely 'Pretti was just standing in the road', it was 'Pretti was standing in the road while actively being told not to'.

  And I’m used to seeing this kind of enforcement from the NYPD ESU at protests outside of the Javits Federal building near my work.

  Anecdotal? Guile's Theme (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  It certainly seems confirmed in reliable sources that the agents were telling people to stay out of the road the source you quote is a (provisional) DHS report on its own conduct among other things. Are you seriously citing the 'accused' govt agency as being a reliable source in this case? In any instance a govt agency is RS only for its own view, but in this instance the claim that it is reliable is laughable. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are you seriously citing the 'accused' govt agency as being a reliable source in this case?

  ?? Are you missing the huge part of the article where 2 entire sections are titled "Customs and Border Protection report to Congress" and "Government Investigations"?? Guile's Theme (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The government report cannot be used as a source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  1) Nowhere in that does it say the government cannot be a source, it instead says no use of Primary Sources, which this is not, as shown by the 2 media sources that reported this linked about, among many others.

  2) the report comes from one to congress, which already has its own entire section in the article... Guile's Theme (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest you read WP:PRIMARYUSE, including the section titled "Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain" FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then why is there 2 different section titled 'Government Investigations' under Investigations and another titled "Customs and Border Protection report to Congress" under shooting? Also, most 'murder of' articles the facts ultimately come from police/government reports.

  Also, there is video of Alex Pretti being pushed out of the street before he was shot and such is talked about by CNN; transcript from near around the 8:00 mark, "we have some new video that shows the minutes before Alex Peretti was shot by immigration agents, walk us through that. What stands out to you? Well, this is important because we've seen the actual incident of the shooting, but these are the moments just before that. And you can actually see these immigration agents that are there interacting with Pretii. They're off to the left of uh that video there. At one point, they start shoving him. They're pushing him back. He's standing there filming."

  You can see clearly in the video while he is speaking the agent is pushing Pretti out of the road. This took place before he was later filmed standing in the road and then shot.

  Guile's Theme (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  There's a difference between analysis and simple reproduction. As is explained in the essay I suggested you read. Citing a source for the former is fine; citing it for the latter is still primary. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for making this somewhat personal, but I couldn’t help it due to your user name: looks like Guile’s Theme doesn’t go with everything. (I loved that meme a decade or so back)

  Agree that you should review PRIMARY and especially BLPPRIMARY wrt basing something off of the Preliminary DHS Report, even if it is to Congress. We shouldn’t be including anything attributed to them in Wikivoice except to say what they claim, because DHS under Noem will attempt to make themselves come off the best they can in official reports, especially given their slander of Pretti in the initial aftermath of the shooting. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 14:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  No worries, see my reply FactOrOpinion above. CNN, NBC, and others seems to report more or less the same in a way not ascribed to DHS and it is visible in video, even somewhat audible in video published by the same sources, making it moot. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Moot point, it is also reported by CCN and in a different context not from DHS and visible in video footage. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Include This is what a background section is for. If we mention he's of Northern Italian ancestry and a native of Illinois then surely this would not be an absurd level of detail. If we avoid making insinuations such as "ICE targeted him", "he wanted to tussle this time around", etc. then I don't see what the problem is. Bremps... 16:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  See MOS:ETHNICITY - what relevance does his ancestry have? Doug Weller talk 10:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I had thought about this too. I think the work the line is doing is to show that he was not Hispanic and/or brown. Meaning that he didn’t fit the description of those who are considered to be targets of ICE’s mission in and of himself.

  That point feels relevant to me, though it may not be relevant and there might be a better way of making the point than to give his ancestry.

  I think there was also some social media speculation about his ancestry. Obviously we shouldn’t write our articles per the whim of social media, but there may have been some appetite to accurately document his ancestry because of the noise. Mikewem (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  what relevance does his ancestry have ? Probably none. A fair amount of personal info has been removed, but it remains a mix of 'necessary/relevant' 'standard WP background' and 'possibly trivial' info. That he had been going on anti-ICE protests is relevant, but why do we include his union membership or that "His father told reporters that Pretti acknowledged warnings from his parents to be careful while protesting". It's poignantly ironic given what happened, but relevant? Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The reference to his Italian ancestry is now removed, as no one seems to want to defend its inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: I meant my comment to be (not exactly a strong) defense of it. There is certainly a racial component regarding the wider crackdown. Though if this line is something of an easy target that critics can point to as undue, then I guess remove it. Though I also don’t like the idea of writing our articles per the whims of critics. Mikewem (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware of the 'wider crackdown' having an ethnic element (crudely, you are much more likely to be targetted if you look/sound as though you could be 'foreign'. So American citizens who don't look or sound stereotypically American are much more likely to be targetted by these guys). That doesn't appear to apply here though and sources haven't highlighted ethnicity as a factor in this instance. It appears (from the names of the 'agents'), that neither they nor Pretti were WASPs. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Include The earlier encounter between Pretti and the agents has been widely reported by all major media. The video clearly shows Pretti physically interacting with federal agents during a protest 11 days before the shooting.

While the interaction is not necessarily central to the main incident, it is what of what led up to the protests. I think leaving it out would miss relevant context the media are already reporting. Frankserafini87 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Include ,I think WP:WEIGHT requires it be mentioned in the article, as it has been so widely reported in clear connection with the primary topic of this page, rather that only indirectly as Trump reacting to it, buried at near the end as it currently exists. Also per WP:BALANCE, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.", and this has been very widely documented and commented on in direct relation to the topic of this article. That denial of information to a reader seems to only serve an astroturfing purpose. If the death of Rene Good during operation Metro Surge is mentioned twice in the background section, and operation Metro surge is the title of a whole section in the background, why are Alex's own documented actions/behavior during Operation Metro Surge also not mentioned?? Give the reader the information as reported by reliable sources and let them decide what they think of it.

I also see reasons against including it under Investigations; for one it has mostly been reported on by media and not as a result of any government investigations, and the investigations section is headed 'government investigations' which this video generally is not mentioned in the context of by News sources. Furthemore why is Trump's reaction to the video in the investigations section before the video is even talked about??

Example how News sources describe the events of the video followed by links to 4 examples though there are many more:

Headline: New videos show Alex Pretti in confrontation with federal agents in Minneapolis 11 days before he was killed

Body:In one video of the Jan. 13 incident posted online Wednesday, Pretti is seen shouting and spitting at an unmarked SUV with flashing lights. As the vehicle begins to move away, he kicks out one of its taillights. A federal agent wearing a gas mask and helmet emerges from the rear passenger seat, grabs Pretti and throws him to the ground. Other federal agents join and try to subdue him. Pretti’s jacket comes off during a scuffle, and when he gets up, a handgun is visible in his waistband. At no point in the footage does he reach for his gun. When Pretti gets up, the person filming the incident approaches him and asks if he is OK. “I’m OK,” Pretti replies. “Are we all OK? Are we all safe?”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/new-videos-show-alex-pretti-in-confrontation-with-federal-agents-in-minneapolis-11-days-before-he-was-killed-162253349.html https://www.kcbd.com/2026/01/29/new-videos-show-alex-pretti-scuffle-with-federal-officers-minneapolis-11-days-before-his-death/ https://katv.com/news/nation-world/new-footage-appears-to-show-alex-pretti-kicking-and-spitting-on-federal-agents-car-ice-dhs-immigration-kristi-noems-border-patrol-minneapolis-minnesota-greg-bovino-tom-homan-donald-trump-tim-walz?teaserSource=trending https://fox4kc.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-new-videos-show-alex-pretti-scuffle-with-federal-officers-in-minneapolis-11-days-before-his-death/ Guile's Theme (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't include, for now. Most news reports (including the sources we use) of the video simply summarize/describe the content of the video and report that it is an authentic video. That gives us no help in contextualizing the video as part of the event for our article. We need explicitly stated conclusions from RS per WP:SYNTH.

There are some crumbs of context, such as in the CBS we use: A Department of Homeland Security official told CBS News investigators with Homeland Security Investigations were aware of the video and are analyzing it. In my view, this is good support for including the video in the Investigations section. This crumb of context is repeated in other RS such as ABC and PBS.

I found an argument against relevancy to Background in this Vox that I find persuasive: Evidence of Pretti’s past aggression might have been relevant, had his fatal confrontation with Border Patrol not been recorded. In such a circumstance, the public would need to make an educated guess about whether Pretti gave agents cause for using lethal force, based in part on his prior behavior. In our universe, however, we know that he did not. Mikewem (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Update to !vote: I would not object to but refer (3), if the number of words in the referral are actively kept to a bare minimum by rfc consensus. I would also like to see a new sub-heading for just the incident (in whatever section the bulk of it ends up being in) so that if we choose to point to it with a link, we can point directly to it (the current proposal to link to the Government Investigations section and hope readers know to scroll through 4 paragraphs of unrelated government investigations doesn’t work for me). Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem It's not SYNTH to give reasonable background that doesn't invent any new conclusions. Do you think that the other info in Killing of Alex Pretti#Alex Pretti is contextualized any differently? Placeholderer (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say the unsourced conclusion (so far) is the consideration to categorize it in Background. Given that both events were recorded and we can compare them, I just don’t see (so far) how we can say that the first is significant background information that helps document his death. Yes, it happened. Yes, it’s similar. But from my eyes, it looks like his death plays out exactly the same way whether or not the first altercation happened. There’s a million ways I can imagine that the prior altercation could have been very compelling in a way that’s a no-brainer. If he didn’t carry a gun the first time but did the second; if his behavior at his killing was more aggressive compared to the first; if they ID’d him at the first one; if he got arrested/charged at the first one; if it was any of the same agents; if we learn that the family’s words of caution came between the two events and influenced him to tone it down; if they ID’d him before shots were fired, and so on. But I’m just not seeing a compelling thread (so far). Mikewem (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

How is it SYNTH to consider something widely reported that happened in the lead-up to an event as "Background" for that event?? But from my eyes, it looks like his death plays out exactly the same way whether or not the first altercation happened That's not the question here. The point is exactly to include the info without inserting any unsourced connection. Placeholderer (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include. It is critical background to his death. WWGB (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Don't include. The "Background" section is for background to the subject of the article, namely the killing of Alex Pretti. Unless the agents who shot him were aware of the prior incident and took revenge, a supposition we currently have no evidence of, the prior incident is not background to the incident where he was killed. Basic biographical details about Pretti like where he was born are relevant to his killing because he's the one who was killed. What Pretti was doing 11 days before the incident is not relevant to his killing apart from the fact that he was participating in the protests, which we already have in there. Loki (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  What Pretti was doing 11 days before the incident is not relevant to his killing apart from the fact that he was participating in the protests Could you clarify the distinction there? Why is attending protests relevant and the altercation isn't?

  On my end, I think it's clear that, when someone dies in an altercation with a group, the fact they were in another altercation with the same group (I'm conflating ICE and BP) less than two weeks prior, that's relevant information Placeholderer (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  If the other altercation caused the new one, or had some bearing on why the new one happened I'd agree. But we have no evidence it did, so in fact it's just some other thing that happened. Loki (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Does attending the protests have bearing on the killing event happening? If anything I think the protests are less relevant Placeholderer (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Unless the agents who shot him were aware of the prior incident and took revenge, a supposition we currently have no evidence of, the prior incident is not background to the incident where he was killed.

  Where is the logic in that? Why would the agents have to be aware of the prior incident for it to satisfy inclusion per WP:Weight, WP:Balance, and WP:NPOV?

  Also, if according to you information "prior incident is not background to the incident where he was killed," then why are these 'prior incidents' mentioned in the background of the article?

  On January 7, a federal agent fatally shot Renée Good, an incident that set off protests that drew thousands. The following week, a Venezuelan man, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, was shot in the leg by an immigration officer and survived.

  Answer for Renee Good at least is the same reason this info about the January 13th video belongs there; because it was very widely reported on by reliable sources in connection with the topic of this article and chronologically took place before it. The other example of the illegal immigrant who violently resisted arrest and took the cops on a car chase I do not believe has been as widely reported in connection to this topic so it's inclusion is actually less defensible than the January 13th video...

  Basic biographical details about Pretti like where he was born are relevant to his killing because he's the one who was killed.

  But a video of him and his behavior, conduct, and nature of his presence at the protests in nearly identical circumstances to that which he was killed only 11 days prior isn't? If we made an article about someone who was killed by a gang wouldn't it be relevant to mention he was in an altercation with members of the same gang 11 days before regardless of the fact if we know if it was 'the same gang members specifically'... Guile's Theme (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  The short answer to your final question is "no". This is the background section of Killing of Alex Pretti. That other incident was not the killing of Alex Pretti and appears to have had no causal relationship whatsoever with the killing of Alex Pretti, so it is not background. Loki (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  A causal relationship is not required, especially because that would involve you deciding what is causal which would be improper, and excluding it would be a clear violation of multiple Wikipedia Policies including the most important ones. All that is required really is that it is mentioned as relevant and in connection by Reliable Sources enough that it merits inclusion per DUE WEIGHT, which it does. Guile's Theme (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include - The comments against seem to be just twisting themselves into knots. Of course it's relevant. That's why the sources are covering it in relation to a person who is not known for anything outside this event. GMG^talk 18:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just to expand on my rationale, the sources decide what's relevant. The sources are covering this aspect of the subject. They're doing so in relation to the shooting. There is no other avenue for them to reasonably cover it (Headline: Man in Minnesota Kicks Out Tail Light). The argument that keeps cropping up, that the reader may then infer something from this information isn't really our problem. They may infer that Pretti had a pattern of violence. They may infer that ICE had a pattern of violence. They may infer both or neither. The reader can go out on their own and SYNTH however they see fit. It's not our job to idiot-proof that. GMG^talk 22:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've already input my include vote below, but I want to propose my understanding of the include argument in case it might be helpful:

1) As of now there is no indication of a direct connection between this incident and his death, including no indication of causality

2) This incident with ICE officers in the same city in a period of time shortly before his death is a relevant piece of background information for his death, just as his participating in ICE protests is, by its inherent nature and the substantial reporting

3) What level of relevance it has is unclear. It may be just a footnote, it could have greater relevance. We just don't know and until investigations are conducted or further reporting is done anyone claiming it is irrelevant or that it should fundamentally change how we perceive his killing is performing WP:OR. It is also quite possible we will never know anything beyond what we know now.

4) Accordingly, it should be included in Background, but it should not be given undue weight. Per what I just said, it should be left to stand on its own until further information comes out, in which case it can be updated. WinstonDewey (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include Inclusion doesn't mean one event caused the other, but all widely reported/referenced details that are coming out related to the killing should be included in the article as WP:DUE. IF we, in Wiki voice, drew a link between the two that implied causation, that would be problematic. But including it doesn't imply justification or causation. It simply gives the full background to relevant and related events that led up to Pretti's death. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning Include for completeness of background section with no opposition to 3. Sure, this didn't come out until the investigation after Pretti's death, but background sections of incidents like this tend to have background details of the people involved, and this sure as hell is a relevant background detail for Pretti. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• 2 with no objection to 3. Including this in the background section makes a strong and entirely unjustified claim in wikivoice that this forms a relevant part of the background. This only came to light afterwards and does not form a meaningful part of the background. To include it as background poisons the readers' understanding of what they read afterwards. A pro-ICE reader might interpret it as justification for the killing. An ant-ICE reader might interpret it as indicating that Pretti was targeted as an act of revenge. Neither of those are things that we should be implying as neither side is alleging that the killers had prior knowledge of who they were were shooting or what he may have done in the past. It is improper synthesis to include this as part of the background. We can cover it as part of the responses. Mentioning it very briefly in the background to refer readers forward to the correct section might be helpful to a few readers. I'm not convinced that it is necessary but I have no objection to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  If it is included, but not given WP:UNDUE why is it a problem? The answer can't be that people will apply their personal views to it, its not our job to avoid that, just to edit according to standards. I still have not seen the case that inclusion in Background for Pretti himself will inherently be improper synthesis by its inclusion regardless of the wording. WinstonDewey (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a responsibility not to mislead our readers. We have a responsibility not to imply things that are not true. Putting the cart before the horse misrepresents what happened and there are pretty obvious reasons why some people would want us to do that and why we should not be tricked into doing so. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a responsibility not to mislead our readers, but we can't protect them from every bonkers interpretation of appropriate text that can fit in a hypothetical Placeholderer (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

"Putting the cart before the horse misrepresents what happened and there are pretty obvious reasons why some people would want us to do that and why we should not be tricked into doing so."

I cannot find in any relevant WP policy how placement of an appropriate mention that follows WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:BDP, WP:NPOV, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:WEIGHT would be misrepresentation of the kind you are concerned about. You should go see what @Placeholderer has proposed further down as potential language that could be included. I'd say its pretty in line with the consensus here and in line with policy. If you can demonstrate that such text violates policy, by all means please share that here. But synthesis is not juxtaposition and if the only other reasoning you have is due to personal concerns regarding how other people will interpret policy-abiding edits then I would encourage you to reconsider and instead contribute to making sure the text included does follow policy. WinstonDewey (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• We can also make the case failing to include it would be even more misleading to the reader because then as it currently reads Alex Pretti comes off as a happen stance bystander in the article. It can also never possibly be WP:SYNTH as there is absolutely no combining of different sources to relate this event to the topic of this article; everything that talked about the January 13th video obviously tied it to Pretti's killing as otherwise that video would have never been in the news at all. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of false narrative we need to avoid! He was observing the ICE actions and came to the aid of a woman who was attacked. That is the relevant context. Anything that happened in the past is irrelevant, not least because the killers did not know about that at the time and it played no part in the events. To falsely assert its relevance is deeply POV and, intentionally or otherwise, seems likely to be read as seeking to justify the killing. A note referring forward (option 3) is as far as we can go on this. Anything else is reordering the narrative to fit a POV. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

He was observing the ICE actions and came to the aid of a woman who was attacked.

That in itself is a 'narrative' by its omissions. He was observing, but from a place he didn't have a right to observe, and a woman was not being 'attacked' so much as forced off the road she was not supposed to be standing in but she was doing so intentionally regardless, and as a fact Pretti had neither a right nor authority to direct traffic or intervene.

If you want to do away with a risk of 'narrative' give all the facts as reported by reliable sources in connection with the topic with per wiki policy of due weight, balance, and NPOV. Otherwise you can only be excluding information in order to doctor a 'narrative' in the article...

That is the relevant context.

We do not decide what is 'the' relevant context...

Anything that happened in the past is irrelevant

By that logic the entire Metro Surge Section, mentions of Rene Good, and Pretti's entire background should all be removed. Since anything in the past is 'irrelevant'.

To falsely assert its relevance is deeply POV

We can more persuasively say that to deny it's relevancy is deeply POV; regardless it still merits inclusion given how widely it was reported and entirely and only in connection to the topic of this article... Guile's Theme (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. Get over yourself. You don't need to respond to every !vote on this RFC, y'know. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There are 20 votes here and I've only directly replied to 2 of them, both of which attracted replies from other beside myself, and replied to a reply of a 3rd vote... But nice exaggeration/hyperbole. Maybe you should also read the SOAPBOX article and then quote which specific part of what I've said you believe constitutes it if you aren't going to be flinging bald accusations. Likely if anyone needs to 'get over themselves' it appears to be you since you believe yourself the authority to dictate who can speak and how much... Guile's Theme (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I encourage you to start thinking in terms of !votes (WP:NOTVOTE), not votes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I know it isn't a vote, Wiki is built around consensus except for when lack of good faith or stonewalling prevents it, but it is the most convenient way to refer to it. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I calls it like I see it, and I see you commenting the most on this Talk Page in general. If you don’t want to give the impression that you’re bludgeoning the discussion, maybe take a step back. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 00:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of that is due to taking multiple edits per reply Placeholderer (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm big into the 'writing is rewriting' school; ie I make many typos and like to refine. I also felt like a later comer to this article, as it was made on the 24th and I didn't begin commenting until the 30th, so something of lost time to make up for Guile's Theme (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about number of edits, because I am also a prolific editor of my own comments after they have been posted. I’m talking about number of comments/replies in general.

But I am sympathetic to the comment that this shouldn’t be a discussion to be had here, so I’ll drop it. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 07:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we have this discussion somewhere else? GMG^talk 03:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include – Reliable sources are reporting on this in conjunction with the killing. The article vaguely mentions Pretti participating in Renée Good protests; it would help to add context. I don't believe adding this information would make any implication that these two events were connected, unless poorly worded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include I don't need to go into excessive detail, especially considering many of the other answers supporting this already have. It just seems to be some useful background information. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include - In Wikipedia, we editors operate via fairly stringent policies of conduct and factual neutrality; policies which are required because they tend to not exist in the larger world. Perhaps it doesn't need saying that the current American government has been caught in several sloppy misinformation campaigns (read: lies), but perhaps it does. We need to prevent accusations of cherry-picking by those for whom Truth is whatever they can spin to the world before the truth can put on its shoes.

To paraphrase Maximus' (and others') comments earlier, we need to include this information, with special care to not give the prior interaction any UNDUE weight, BIO or to SYNthesize zebras where there are only sawhorses. Our readers need - deserve truthful context, excluding this information does not give readers an accurate timeline (aka, backround) information of events. We need to include it so that others do not fill that lack of information like bacteria in a tooth cavity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Don't include, but refer in the section #Alex Pretti. Something like this:

would be my ideal wording. Going into detail about the confrontation in this section has potential WP:UNDUE issues. I could be persuaded to support including more detailed information elsewhere in the background (perhaps in its own subsection), but this is my first choice with the wikilink going to wherever the details about the confrontation actually are. mdm.bla 22:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include - Clearly relevant background information that has been covered by reliable sources. Jevansen (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Don't include. I agree with Loki that "Unless the agents who shot him were aware of the prior incident and took revenge, a supposition we currently have no evidence of, the prior incident is not background to the incident where he was killed." FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include I only learned of this RFC after making exactly this edit (and getting reverted) today. First time on this article. This content currently is buried in some odd politicized section. This should rather be listed in the background to support timeline and prose in the article. Per MOS:SNO we organize based on precedent, and there is no question that history goes in a timeline. There are some nonsensical SYNTH arguments above that are far off base. We simply present the historical content roughly in a timeline, and the reader can decide what they make of it. Proposing to move the content later in the article (to down-weight it) is a violation of SNO. Some of the other arguments above talking about other odd issues such as ethnicity are absurd. In addition to SNO its also pretty snowy here ;-) Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 1.  Include information on this event in the "Background" section of this article
 2.  Don't include information on this event in the "Background" section of this article
  ALittleClass (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)